> Using simple simulations,we show that this pattern arises naturally from collider bias when selection into elitesamples depends on both early and adult performance. Consequently, associationsestimated within elite samples are descriptively accurate for the selected population,but causally misleading, and should not be used to infer developmental mechanisms
Is that paper in print? I can't seem to find if it was peer reviewed.
If the paper is true, then, yeesh! That's a pretty big miss on the part of Güllich et al.
Reading through the very short paper there, it seems to not have gone through review yet (typos, mispellings, etc). Also, it's not clear that the data in the tables or the figure are from Güllich's work or are simulations meant to illustrate their idea (" True and estimated covariate effects in the presence of simulated collider bias in the
full and selected samples"). Being more clear where the data is coming from may help the argument, but I likely just missed some sentence or something.
I'll be interested to see where this goes. That Güllich managed to get the paper into Science in the first place lends credence to them having gone through something as simple as Berkson's Paradox and have accounted for that. It's not everyday you get something as 'soft' as that paper into Science, after all. If not, then wow! standards for review really have slipped!
Seems very Taleb's Ugly Surgeon / Berkson's Paradox to me. It's like how software engineers who are at Google are worse if they're better competitive programmers.
Makes sense. My perspective is that fast learners are fast because they absorb information quickly without the overhead of cross-domain synthesis. They have more logical contradictions in their minds which they haven't resolved or aren't even aware of. Their worldview is not coherent as a whole. In some cases, they don't have a worldview; instead they just rely on expert data to inform their decisions... But the experts themselves are often victim to the same kind of domain-specific tunnel vision. Such people often lack creativity in their work because cross-domain pattern synthesis is precisely how you can solve complex problems that haven't been solved before.
This does not match my observations. Also, what I've heard from experts is that 'intelligent' people are more suggestible. The way society measures intelligence is thinking speed; which tends to correlate with learning speed.
Some people learn surface-level information quickly without deep integration; what educational researchers sometimes call "shallow learning." And specialization can create blind spots.
I'm sure there is an association between personality traits {openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism} with preferences to specialize or learn broadly. That is seperate from the phenomena of nearly all cognitive tasks being correlated with each other positively, e.g. verbal scores are positively correlated with math and musical scores. This is referred to as g-factor in literature.
My overall point being, yes people learn differently, but it is also true that there exists outliers in general intelligence
I've seen very often people with good memory will be regarded as intelligent. They integrate "knowledge" by just recording verbatim phrases. That takes them a very long way... But when the time comes to analyze something, they break down. I've fallen in that myself, people I regarded as intelligent, because they "knew" so much things, could not keep up with the most basic syllogism, they were just stupid.
In my experience when I am able to pick something up quickly it's because I can exploit cross domain knowledge. I have ready-made analogies to things I understand, or I understand the domain which informs the fundamentals of the new domain.
> It's like how software engineers who are at Google are worse if they're better competitive programmers.
That's not true. It didn't replicate and Norvig has said as much somewhere on HN, IIRC.
(I also agree with the other criticisms that this 'old vs young' setup in OP is obviously at least partially, and perhaps entirely, regression to the mean and Berkson.)
> For example, world top-10 youth chess players and later world top-10 adult chess players are nearly 90% different individuals across time. Top secondary students and later top university students are also nearly 90% different people. Likewise, international-level youth athletes and later international-level adult athletes are nearly 90% different individuals.
Motivation if you feel like you're young and failing
from sports i know (hockey), generally the next generational player is identified when they're like 12-13 years old (earlier for Gretzky). You look at the top scorers from the Brick Tournament(9-10 year old kids play in that tournament) from 10 years ago (https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/brick-invitational/201...), 3 of the top 5 scorers were drafted in the first round, and the top goalie was Team Canada's goalie at the world juniors.
edit: went back a few more years, lots of NHLers in the top 5 in scoring in the tournament, but some years are more miss than hit.
Gretzky is well-known for saying he thinks kids should play multiple sports and avoid hockey in the summer, like he did (IIRC) - he mentioned soccer, etc.
> from sports i know (hockey), generally the next generational player is identified when they're like 12-13 years old (earlier for Gretzky).
Yeah, I'm really unconvinced by the paper.
1) Adult chess GMs all come from super advanced kids, now. Period. GM Ben Finegold talks about this at length.
2) We know that, for example, hockey success is correlated with birth month. This means that juniors who happen to be slightly larger and promising get more attention and coaching and so wind up being the world class adults, too.
I could be more convinced by academics and music that you need multi-disciplinary education to be world class, but I'd need to see a lot more evidence.
Nevertheless, the single thing I extract from my anecdata is that being top ten in a world class field requires a dedication bordering on psychotic mania. You have to be willing to not just go the extra mile but the mile beyond that and beyond that and ...
Most people are completely put out by the minimal amount of effort to get to the top 1% so they would be stunned by the amount of work you have to put in to get to top 10.
in contrast: the sport i know best, hoops, a common pattern for generational players is for them to be late bloomers because they grow up short, developing skills and competitive toughness, then get lucky and grow a half-foot late in puberty
mj had a growth spurt his jr year of hs (the rest of his family is < 6') scottie had a giant growth spurt in college (was a walk on point guard and was 6') kelly olynyk is a local example of a guy who grew late in hs (also a pg before growing). bill walton was normal tall, his brothers are 6'3"ish (nba pg height), but then shot up 8 inches to 6'10" his jr year of hs. many many examples. Robinson for sure the most drastic bc he grew in the navy
now that you mention it, you have a good point that it seems less common lately
Can also offer anecdotal support from esports I know about (League of Legends , StarCraft 2, and counterstrike)
For StarCraft 2 the best historical players are all child prodigies , same for Formula 1 , all recent World Champions are child prodigies
The problem being: access to a prestiges career or opportunity is generally predicated on climbing the academics achievement ladder at an increasingly early age. This leaves the more esoteric people out in the cold. If your not a true prodigy whose achievements outshine the highly credentialed you will struggle to get on.
In the tech industry, some of the people with the most prestigious careers are literally college dropouts. There are many paths to success, not all are linear.
It seems the criticism is indeed Berkson's Paradox, but the example is different to the canonical example of Berkson's paradox.
In the canonical example, you have uncorrelated attributes, eg skill and attractiveness in actors, forming a round scatter plot with no correlation. Selecting a subpopulation of top actors who are either skilled or attractive, you get a negative correlation. You can visualize this as chopping the top-right of the round scatter plot off: the chopped off piece is oriented in roughly a line of negative correlation.
In this example, if you look in the linked paper inside the post by Dimakis, there is a positively correlated scatter plot: You can tell the shape is correlated positively between youth and adult performance. But in this case, if you condition on the extremes of performance, you end up selecting a cloud of points that has flat to slight negative correlation.
Correlated attributes can still lead to the paradox, so long as the error measured parallel to the cutoff line (the "fuzziness" of the correlation) is greater than the slope of the cutoff line. Here are a couple cartoons to demonstrate. Denote each datapoint with I or E, depending on whether it's included or excluded in the region x + y > z.
Berkson's Paradox seems to rely on the selection criteria being a combination of the two traits in question -- in the example I keep reading about, only "famous" actors are selected, and actors can be famous if they are either highly talented or highly attractive. But in TFA, surely the "high performance" selection filter applies only to the adult performance level?
To put it another way: If selection was restricted to people who performed highly in either their youth or in adulthood (or both), Berkson's Paradox explains the result. If selection was restricted to people who performed highly in their youth, or if selection was restricted to people who performed highly in adulthood, Berkson's doesn't explain it.
>Berkson's Paradox seems to rely on the selection criteria being a combination of the two traits in question
100% correct. For traits x and y, selecting for datapoints in the region x + y > z will always yield a spurious negative correlation for sufficiently uncorrelated data, since the boundary of the inequality x + y > z is a negatively sloping line.
>But in TFA, surely the "high performance" selection filter applies only to the adult performance level?
Doesn't seem that way. Reading the full paper [0], they say:
In sports, several predictor effects on early junior performance and on later senior world-class performance are not only different but are opposite. [...] The different pattern of predictor effects observed among adult world-class athletes is also evident in other domains. For example, Nobel laureates in the sciences had slower progress in terms of publication impact during their early years than Nobel nominees. Similarly, senior world top-3 chess players had slower performance progress during their early years than 4th-to 10th-ranked senior players, and fewer world top-3 than 4th- to 10th-ranked senior chess players earned the grandmaster title of the International Chess Federation (FIDE) by age 14.
It really does seem they took the set of people who were either elite as a kid, elite as an adult, or both, and concluded that this biased selection constitutes a negative correlation.
One interesting reason this happens, at least in the music field, is the adult disadvantages that often go along with various forms of savantism. I have spoken with a number of fellow music academics about this, and it's not uncommon that the things that make one a young prodigy are the same things that give one real obstacles to making it in the regular world, and this can impose a ceiling on where they get to. For example, many music prodigies have never "really had to work" and once they get to having to shoulder the boring reponsibilities that go with building a career, they instead alienate people, or just can't do things that are hard for them because it's always been easy. Maybe they can't play off charts unless they've heard it, or aren't used to following instructions/cues/being the lead, etc. And unless they are truly, truly rare air, real career gigs have boring work elements too.
Savantism can be pretty damned weird. I've known a few, including a couple who will never have an adult career beyond local gigs because of their mental disabilities in other, non-music areas. The Oliver Sacks book "Musicophelia" has fascinating case stories about it.
Exponential growth is the path of longsuffering, and one doesn't always make it. It sucks and looks and feels bad for all involved. This is why advice such as, "Ignore the naysayers." is clutch. And other advice once one starts to rocket shoot like "Stay in your lane." is the absolute worst advice of all time. (IYKYK - Rest in peace Scott Adams)
Another thought - Einstein had reviewed thousands of patents when he worked on the train - that's a hell of data set for an LM to start with.
This is somewhat related to the application of strength to various sports and physical endeavors. Most sports utilize strength to a large degree, but it's usually in a narrow application, e.g. a golf swing, a sprinter's run, a rock climber's grip. The naive algorithm to improve at these sports is to practice them, and the slightly less naive method is to train for strength in that narrow application, for example you often see rock climbers training by doing rock climbing specific grip exercises.
Unintuitively, strength is a general adaptation that applies to all specific movements. A muscle is either strengthened across a range of motion, or it isn't; a muscle cannot be strong swinging a club while not strong lifting a weight, nor can it be strong holding a rock while weak holding a bar. It is optimal for most sports to train for general strength via barbells, and then to practice that strength via the sport. The rock climber should do heavy deadlifts and chinups to train his grip (and everything else), not special rock grip exercises, for the latter are difficult to progress in small increments and are inefficient in a time sense. A man who can do chinups with 150 pounds hanging from his waist, and who can hold a 550 pound barbell, will not have a problem hanging onto the bouldering wall; he need only practice his technique.
To the article's point, you should get "strong" in everything until you decide to practice that strength in one thing.
This sort of tracks for me. The smartest people I know as adults mostly fucked around a lot and had wide interests that all culminated in them doing a great thing greatly. The smartest people I know as kids spent hours grinding on something and crashed out in college and are mostly average well-to-dos now.
I'm reminded of a meme on Facebook my wife showed me that was a two-dimensional graph of SAT score vs. GPA. The corner with the highest SAT scores but the lowest GPAs was shaded in and labelled "These are the people I want to hang out with."
I'm not sure we should romanticize ADHD, which is what you call that region. If those people could be high SAT and high GPA they would prefer it. Signed, someone in that region.
Nah. There are plenty of intelligent students who don't have ADHD but are either lazy or rebellious enough to not care about conventional measures of academic success.
I annihilated the SATs. My grades were only good in high school because I was just "gifted" enough to get As without studying. I do not have and never had ADHD. I also never learned how to study.
I almost failed out of college. I didn't know how to study. I didn't have the habits. I sure had a lot of fun in high school and college though.
> In 1933, while overseeing the writing of Truppenführung, the manual for leading combined arms formations, Hammerstein-Equord made one of the most historically prescient observations on leadership. During the writing effort, he offered his personal view of officers, classifying them in a way only he could:
> “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
The abstract seems already highly tendentious. It acts like 90% nonoverlap (whatever that means precisely) between sets A and B is very small overlap, when at a population level it is huge overlap. If the set of yough high performers and the set of adult high performers have 10% overlap, it means that youth high performance is a tremendously good indicator for adult high performance.
Early exceptional performers and later exceptional performers within a domain are rarely the same individuals but are largely discrete populations over time... and Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, and chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Together.
A simple explanation: high performance requires quite a bit of specific preparation. But "exceptional" performance is mostly random relative to the larger population of high performers in terms of the underlying training-to-skills-to-achievement "equation". Especially, being at the top tends to get someone more resources than those nearly at the top who don't have visible/certified achievements.
I'd that billing your work "the study of the very best" really gives you strong marketing spin and that makes people tempted to find simplistic markers rather than looking at the often random processes involved in visible success. IE, I haven't touched on reversion to mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean).
That book used artwork valuation as a performance measure and analyzed it over top artist's lifetimes finding two patterns. The "Young Genius" where an artist has a vision and realizes some innovation and their most valuable works center around that with value tapering off over their life. Picasso. (Who had two peaks but still fit the pattern.) Contrast to the "Old Master." This is someone who keeps refining their craft and their most valuable works and innovations are their late life works. Cézanne.
Clicking on this link just reminded me again that science (like all such restricted access journals) is an operation that relies heavily on publicly funded research and unpaid academic labor.
And yet their access restriction not only removes the public from consuming the fruits of their labor, but it also systematically harms less well-resourced institutions, independent scholars and impedes the spread of knowledge (particularly in areas of the world that need it most).
I wish we could reach a point where we wouldn't allow this anymore.
That could simply be explained by early high achievers being worked hard by their parents or something else while people with innate abilities making progress slower (because most people are not overworked). For the first group they sizzle either because the pressure is removed as they grow up or because they hit their ceiling.
My experience is almost the inverse of what you describe, I never had to work at all until university, I was a top performer until "physique 1: mécanique newtonienne" it was the first time (and the last) I failed at something academic.
That was quite a shock to realize that I had to do the exercises and the homeworks if I wanted to pass. And since I was not use to efforts, I was no longer the top performer in classss where you have to do the exercises to really understand the matter.
I was recognized as extremely clever by teachers and other students but let me assure you that over long enough, discipline (witch I don't really have) and consistent efforts beats cleverness.
I was similar except it happened a bit earlier. In the UK the last compulsory school exam, GCSE, seemed like a memory test to me. I could often just figure out stuff in the actual exam even if I'd only briefly overheard something mentioned in a lesson. I didn't do a single piece of homework once I realised there were no real consequences and messed around in lessons. Got top marks in all the subjects I cared about and median in everything else (like art, where I didn't even bother to hang up my final piece).
A-level is like the stepping stone to university. It's optional and you only do subjects you like. Suddenly you had to actually understand the stuff. It wasn't just a memory test. The first exams I got B all around. I wasn't happy with this so I started doing homework etc and actually understanding things.
Coincidentally, my breakthrough also came with Newtownian mechanics. I was quite good at integration, but I didn't understand why I was doing it. Suddenly the whole thing started to make sense when I realised it was about rates of change etc.
Not sure how your experience contradicts my point exactly. You're not saying you are in the highest ranks at all, so your experience is irrelevant. If you are, you fit the natural talent with no pressure description.
Lower early life performance we with lots of multidisciplinary experience, later life hyperfocus on a specific discipline until world-class levels are reached.
Sounds like they're describing ADHD.
(Side note after the important ADHD joke: there's an old sport textbook called "Periodization" that mentions focusing on breadth rather than depth of sports experience in early life is a better path to olympic-level performance than just going hard in a single sport from a young age.)
It’s amazing how far the pop-culture definition of ADHD has strayed from the medical definition. “Hyperfocus … until world class performance” is in no way consistent with the medical definition of ADHD. I’m well aware that “hyperfocus” is a prominent part of the Reddit and TikTok-ification of ADHD diagnostics, but being able to focus intensely on your job until you perform it at world class levels is decisively not indicative of ADHD. Hyperfocus is not part of official ADHD diagnostic criteria and the only pseudo-studies that have examined it have taken place as self-reported questionnaires with small sample sizes in the era since it became a popular topic on social media, unfortunately.
ADHD is not correlated with high career performance, sadly, and represents a real obstacle for those struggling with it. The current social media trend of equating ADHD to a superpower which propels people to focus intensely and excel is really unfortunate.
Hyperfocus is not about "focusing intensely on your job until you perform it at world-class level". The hyperfocus of ADHD is essentially random and driven by the very same inattentive "monkey mind" that's the defining feature of ADHD itself: it's not necessarily targeted to a productive task.
Those who face this issue can of course try to "gamify" their upcoming tasks to themselves in a way that will hopefully steer that focus in desirable directions, but that's not always easy. The monkey mind also resists ongoing habit formation, which is the tool most non-ADHD folks would generally resort to in order to effectively manage their overall schedule and just be more on-task.
Its not random. The neurodivergent brain lacks the ability to perceive (some aspects of) the virtual social reality as something real and to focus on that. In a startup, where the problems at hand are objectively real, the ADHD hyperfocus can excel. In a typical corporation, where the situation is the opposite, it struggles.
It's obviously true that making outcomes more immediately tangible helps make them more appealing to the ADHD brain (that's a very clear kind of "gamification") but I'm not sure how that disagrees with what I said.
I suspect it's partly diagnostic creep. Either real actual professional creep, or self diagnosis.
Some mental illnessess are extreme versions of traits that are often useful. It's good have one person in the village who frets about dangerous stuff, for example. Anxiety is useful at times.
But as you start to diagnose the very functional people who just need a few points to get a top uni course (or people self diagnose) ... well ... maybe you're picking up far less extreme and maladaptive versions of the trait.
...so some people develop their sills using something like RAD* tooling which lets them develop skills quickly, and some don't and end up taking longer but getting better eventual results?
Also, the ungated part doesn't say how they're measure "top" high-school vs university students. It doesn't match what I've heard about the persistence and consistency of basically all standardized tests; are they using within-school rankings for this? If so, that would fit perfectly with students being sorted during university selection.
The strength of analogy is one of the more powerful tools humans have. You take findings/experience from a totally different field and use it to escape the local maxima that other field is caught in.
It's a relatively common theme in sciences that someone comes out of nowhere and solves a long standing problem in a field because they don't have the specialized set of biases that keeps everyone else trapped.
IMHO, it's MUCH more common in sciences though, that someone that is expert-level in one field comes into another and thinks they CAN solve a long standing problem in that field quite easily, and then repeatedly falls into all the pitfalls / traps that others in that field learned long ago to avoid (aka Dunning-Kruger). You know, "chemistry is just applied physics", "biology is applied chemistry", etc.. Sure, it's true in one sense, but... No one calculates the wave function of an elephant, for example.
One of the benefits of generalism / learning multiple fields (IMHO, again) is that you realizes that special abilities / skills don't necessarily translate well from one field to another. For example, learning to play the violin is very different from, say, playing billiards, yet becoming good at either one involves learning subtle manipulations of basically similarly-shaped pieces of wood. By involvement in multiple fields, you learn to be careful NOT to bring your "everything is a nail" mentality with you from one field to the next.
Wasn't this study immediately debunked due to bad statistical methods? See https://zenodo.org/records/18002186
> Using simple simulations,we show that this pattern arises naturally from collider bias when selection into elitesamples depends on both early and adult performance. Consequently, associationsestimated within elite samples are descriptively accurate for the selected population,but causally misleading, and should not be used to infer developmental mechanisms
Is that paper in print? I can't seem to find if it was peer reviewed.
If the paper is true, then, yeesh! That's a pretty big miss on the part of Güllich et al.
Reading through the very short paper there, it seems to not have gone through review yet (typos, mispellings, etc). Also, it's not clear that the data in the tables or the figure are from Güllich's work or are simulations meant to illustrate their idea (" True and estimated covariate effects in the presence of simulated collider bias in the full and selected samples"). Being more clear where the data is coming from may help the argument, but I likely just missed some sentence or something.
I'll be interested to see where this goes. That Güllich managed to get the paper into Science in the first place lends credence to them having gone through something as simple as Berkson's Paradox and have accounted for that. It's not everyday you get something as 'soft' as that paper into Science, after all. If not, then wow! standards for review really have slipped!
Seems very Taleb's Ugly Surgeon / Berkson's Paradox to me. It's like how software engineers who are at Google are worse if they're better competitive programmers.
e.g. https://viz.roshangeorge.dev/taleb-surgeon/
Makes sense. My perspective is that fast learners are fast because they absorb information quickly without the overhead of cross-domain synthesis. They have more logical contradictions in their minds which they haven't resolved or aren't even aware of. Their worldview is not coherent as a whole. In some cases, they don't have a worldview; instead they just rely on expert data to inform their decisions... But the experts themselves are often victim to the same kind of domain-specific tunnel vision. Such people often lack creativity in their work because cross-domain pattern synthesis is precisely how you can solve complex problems that haven't been solved before.
That is a very idealistic perspective. There are certainly fast learners due to the fact they are faster at cross domain synthesis.
This does not match my observations. Also, what I've heard from experts is that 'intelligent' people are more suggestible. The way society measures intelligence is thinking speed; which tends to correlate with learning speed.
Some people learn surface-level information quickly without deep integration; what educational researchers sometimes call "shallow learning." And specialization can create blind spots.
I'm sure there is an association between personality traits {openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism} with preferences to specialize or learn broadly. That is seperate from the phenomena of nearly all cognitive tasks being correlated with each other positively, e.g. verbal scores are positively correlated with math and musical scores. This is referred to as g-factor in literature.
My overall point being, yes people learn differently, but it is also true that there exists outliers in general intelligence
I've seen very often people with good memory will be regarded as intelligent. They integrate "knowledge" by just recording verbatim phrases. That takes them a very long way... But when the time comes to analyze something, they break down. I've fallen in that myself, people I regarded as intelligent, because they "knew" so much things, could not keep up with the most basic syllogism, they were just stupid.
In my experience when I am able to pick something up quickly it's because I can exploit cross domain knowledge. I have ready-made analogies to things I understand, or I understand the domain which informs the fundamentals of the new domain.
I was surprised in college that the math for electronics circuits, mass-spring-damper systems, stress of materials, etc., was all the same.
Correct - heuristics - ie, experience, wisdom, etc.
> It's like how software engineers who are at Google are worse if they're better competitive programmers.
That's not true. It didn't replicate and Norvig has said as much somewhere on HN, IIRC.
(I also agree with the other criticisms that this 'old vs young' setup in OP is obviously at least partially, and perhaps entirely, regression to the mean and Berkson.)
Thanks for sharing. I didn't know that.
> For example, world top-10 youth chess players and later world top-10 adult chess players are nearly 90% different individuals across time. Top secondary students and later top university students are also nearly 90% different people. Likewise, international-level youth athletes and later international-level adult athletes are nearly 90% different individuals.
Motivation if you feel like you're young and failing
from sports i know (hockey), generally the next generational player is identified when they're like 12-13 years old (earlier for Gretzky). You look at the top scorers from the Brick Tournament(9-10 year old kids play in that tournament) from 10 years ago (https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/brick-invitational/201...), 3 of the top 5 scorers were drafted in the first round, and the top goalie was Team Canada's goalie at the world juniors.
edit: went back a few more years, lots of NHLers in the top 5 in scoring in the tournament, but some years are more miss than hit.
Gretzky is well-known for saying he thinks kids should play multiple sports and avoid hockey in the summer, like he did (IIRC) - he mentioned soccer, etc.
> from sports i know (hockey), generally the next generational player is identified when they're like 12-13 years old (earlier for Gretzky).
Yeah, I'm really unconvinced by the paper.
1) Adult chess GMs all come from super advanced kids, now. Period. GM Ben Finegold talks about this at length.
2) We know that, for example, hockey success is correlated with birth month. This means that juniors who happen to be slightly larger and promising get more attention and coaching and so wind up being the world class adults, too.
I could be more convinced by academics and music that you need multi-disciplinary education to be world class, but I'd need to see a lot more evidence.
Nevertheless, the single thing I extract from my anecdata is that being top ten in a world class field requires a dedication bordering on psychotic mania. You have to be willing to not just go the extra mile but the mile beyond that and beyond that and ...
Most people are completely put out by the minimal amount of effort to get to the top 1% so they would be stunned by the amount of work you have to put in to get to top 10.
Yeah, top 10 chess players all spent their teen years constantly playing or practicing chess. Most of them quit school and/or don’t go to college.
Top 10 player who started the latest is probably Yasser Seirawan at 12 years old but most start between 6-10 years old.
in contrast: the sport i know best, hoops, a common pattern for generational players is for them to be late bloomers because they grow up short, developing skills and competitive toughness, then get lucky and grow a half-foot late in puberty
who is that? Not Lebron, definitely not Jokic, SGA was 4 star recruit?
David Robinson was an example of this.
mj had a growth spurt his jr year of hs (the rest of his family is < 6') scottie had a giant growth spurt in college (was a walk on point guard and was 6') kelly olynyk is a local example of a guy who grew late in hs (also a pg before growing). bill walton was normal tall, his brothers are 6'3"ish (nba pg height), but then shot up 8 inches to 6'10" his jr year of hs. many many examples. Robinson for sure the most drastic bc he grew in the navy
now that you mention it, you have a good point that it seems less common lately
Denis Rodman started very late.
Hakeem Olajuwon famously started playing basketball in college. He had some … other gifts tho.
I don't think that's true.
Can also offer anecdotal support from esports I know about (League of Legends , StarCraft 2, and counterstrike) For StarCraft 2 the best historical players are all child prodigies , same for Formula 1 , all recent World Champions are child prodigies
The problem being: access to a prestiges career or opportunity is generally predicated on climbing the academics achievement ladder at an increasingly early age. This leaves the more esoteric people out in the cold. If your not a true prodigy whose achievements outshine the highly credentialed you will struggle to get on.
In the tech industry, some of the people with the most prestigious careers are literally college dropouts. There are many paths to success, not all are linear.
Couldn't this be explained by Berkson's Paradox [0]?
[0] https://xcancel.com/AlexGDimakis/status/2002848594953732521
It seems the criticism is indeed Berkson's Paradox, but the example is different to the canonical example of Berkson's paradox.
In the canonical example, you have uncorrelated attributes, eg skill and attractiveness in actors, forming a round scatter plot with no correlation. Selecting a subpopulation of top actors who are either skilled or attractive, you get a negative correlation. You can visualize this as chopping the top-right of the round scatter plot off: the chopped off piece is oriented in roughly a line of negative correlation.
In this example, if you look in the linked paper inside the post by Dimakis, there is a positively correlated scatter plot: You can tell the shape is correlated positively between youth and adult performance. But in this case, if you condition on the extremes of performance, you end up selecting a cloud of points that has flat to slight negative correlation.
Correlated attributes can still lead to the paradox, so long as the error measured parallel to the cutoff line (the "fuzziness" of the correlation) is greater than the slope of the cutoff line. Here are a couple cartoons to demonstrate. Denote each datapoint with I or E, depending on whether it's included or excluded in the region x + y > z.
Uncorrelated attributes:
Looking at just the Included points shows clear (spurious) negative correlation.Correlated attributes:
The Included points still have a negative spurious correlation, though it's smaller than for the uncorrelated cartoon.Berkson's Paradox seems to rely on the selection criteria being a combination of the two traits in question -- in the example I keep reading about, only "famous" actors are selected, and actors can be famous if they are either highly talented or highly attractive. But in TFA, surely the "high performance" selection filter applies only to the adult performance level?
To put it another way: If selection was restricted to people who performed highly in either their youth or in adulthood (or both), Berkson's Paradox explains the result. If selection was restricted to people who performed highly in their youth, or if selection was restricted to people who performed highly in adulthood, Berkson's doesn't explain it.
>Berkson's Paradox seems to rely on the selection criteria being a combination of the two traits in question
100% correct. For traits x and y, selecting for datapoints in the region x + y > z will always yield a spurious negative correlation for sufficiently uncorrelated data, since the boundary of the inequality x + y > z is a negatively sloping line.
>But in TFA, surely the "high performance" selection filter applies only to the adult performance level?
Doesn't seem that way. Reading the full paper [0], they say:
It really does seem they took the set of people who were either elite as a kid, elite as an adult, or both, and concluded that this biased selection constitutes a negative correlation.[0] https://www.kechuang.org/reader/pdf/web/viewer?file=%2Fr%2F3...
Thanks for finding the relevant quote, but I interpret it the opposite way. Specifically:
> The different pattern of predictor effects observed among adult world-class athletes
This seems to be selecting on just one trait (high adult performance). Where is the second trait (high childhood performance) mentioned?
Here's the wikipedia on that one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
One interesting reason this happens, at least in the music field, is the adult disadvantages that often go along with various forms of savantism. I have spoken with a number of fellow music academics about this, and it's not uncommon that the things that make one a young prodigy are the same things that give one real obstacles to making it in the regular world, and this can impose a ceiling on where they get to. For example, many music prodigies have never "really had to work" and once they get to having to shoulder the boring reponsibilities that go with building a career, they instead alienate people, or just can't do things that are hard for them because it's always been easy. Maybe they can't play off charts unless they've heard it, or aren't used to following instructions/cues/being the lead, etc. And unless they are truly, truly rare air, real career gigs have boring work elements too.
Savantism can be pretty damned weird. I've known a few, including a couple who will never have an adult career beyond local gigs because of their mental disabilities in other, non-music areas. The Oliver Sacks book "Musicophelia" has fascinating case stories about it.
Exponential growth is the path of longsuffering, and one doesn't always make it. It sucks and looks and feels bad for all involved. This is why advice such as, "Ignore the naysayers." is clutch. And other advice once one starts to rocket shoot like "Stay in your lane." is the absolute worst advice of all time. (IYKYK - Rest in peace Scott Adams)
Another thought - Einstein had reviewed thousands of patents when he worked on the train - that's a hell of data set for an LM to start with.
This seems to miss the mark in defining “peak performance”.
Magnus Carlsen, Lang Lang, Terence Tao all were precocious and achieved elite performance in their youth.
This is somewhat related to the application of strength to various sports and physical endeavors. Most sports utilize strength to a large degree, but it's usually in a narrow application, e.g. a golf swing, a sprinter's run, a rock climber's grip. The naive algorithm to improve at these sports is to practice them, and the slightly less naive method is to train for strength in that narrow application, for example you often see rock climbers training by doing rock climbing specific grip exercises.
Unintuitively, strength is a general adaptation that applies to all specific movements. A muscle is either strengthened across a range of motion, or it isn't; a muscle cannot be strong swinging a club while not strong lifting a weight, nor can it be strong holding a rock while weak holding a bar. It is optimal for most sports to train for general strength via barbells, and then to practice that strength via the sport. The rock climber should do heavy deadlifts and chinups to train his grip (and everything else), not special rock grip exercises, for the latter are difficult to progress in small increments and are inefficient in a time sense. A man who can do chinups with 150 pounds hanging from his waist, and who can hold a 550 pound barbell, will not have a problem hanging onto the bouldering wall; he need only practice his technique.
To the article's point, you should get "strong" in everything until you decide to practice that strength in one thing.
[dead]
This sort of tracks for me. The smartest people I know as adults mostly fucked around a lot and had wide interests that all culminated in them doing a great thing greatly. The smartest people I know as kids spent hours grinding on something and crashed out in college and are mostly average well-to-dos now.
I'm reminded of a meme on Facebook my wife showed me that was a two-dimensional graph of SAT score vs. GPA. The corner with the highest SAT scores but the lowest GPAs was shaded in and labelled "These are the people I want to hang out with."
Graduated with a 1.7 GPA and a 32 on the ACT. My parents were a little dismayed.
I'm not sure we should romanticize ADHD, which is what you call that region. If those people could be high SAT and high GPA they would prefer it. Signed, someone in that region.
Who said anything about ADHD?
That's who lives in that region, almost exclusively.
Nah. There are plenty of intelligent students who don't have ADHD but are either lazy or rebellious enough to not care about conventional measures of academic success.
Sure isn't.
I annihilated the SATs. My grades were only good in high school because I was just "gifted" enough to get As without studying. I do not have and never had ADHD. I also never learned how to study.
I almost failed out of college. I didn't know how to study. I didn't have the habits. I sure had a lot of fun in high school and college though.
Nah. I think I graduated HS with a 2.7ish and got a 36 on my ACT in 7th grade.
What does the reverse imply? High GPA, low SAT?
Probably the stupid-and-diligent bit.
> In 1933, while overseeing the writing of Truppenführung, the manual for leading combined arms formations, Hammerstein-Equord made one of the most historically prescient observations on leadership. During the writing effort, he offered his personal view of officers, classifying them in a way only he could:
> “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/10/08/the-four-classes-o...
For most people the set "the smartest people I know as adults" inludes no elite performers in any area.
How many of the children in first group didn’t you meet?
The selection bias might not be relevant if the message is not
"slack around as kid, it will make you great later!"
but
"prodigy youth doesn't guarantee greatness later, as well as non-prodigy youth doesn't prevent you from becoming grat later".
The abstract seems already highly tendentious. It acts like 90% nonoverlap (whatever that means precisely) between sets A and B is very small overlap, when at a population level it is huge overlap. If the set of yough high performers and the set of adult high performers have 10% overlap, it means that youth high performance is a tremendously good indicator for adult high performance.
So consider these quotes:
Early exceptional performers and later exceptional performers within a domain are rarely the same individuals but are largely discrete populations over time... and Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, and chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Together.
A simple explanation: high performance requires quite a bit of specific preparation. But "exceptional" performance is mostly random relative to the larger population of high performers in terms of the underlying training-to-skills-to-achievement "equation". Especially, being at the top tends to get someone more resources than those nearly at the top who don't have visible/certified achievements.
I'd that billing your work "the study of the very best" really gives you strong marketing spin and that makes people tempted to find simplistic markers rather than looking at the often random processes involved in visible success. IE, I haven't touched on reversion to mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean).
Sounds like "Old Masters and Young Geniuses"
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691133805/ol...
That book used artwork valuation as a performance measure and analyzed it over top artist's lifetimes finding two patterns. The "Young Genius" where an artist has a vision and realizes some innovation and their most valuable works center around that with value tapering off over their life. Picasso. (Who had two peaks but still fit the pattern.) Contrast to the "Old Master." This is someone who keeps refining their craft and their most valuable works and innovations are their late life works. Cézanne.
Clicking on this link just reminded me again that science (like all such restricted access journals) is an operation that relies heavily on publicly funded research and unpaid academic labor.
And yet their access restriction not only removes the public from consuming the fruits of their labor, but it also systematically harms less well-resourced institutions, independent scholars and impedes the spread of knowledge (particularly in areas of the world that need it most).
I wish we could reach a point where we wouldn't allow this anymore.
That could simply be explained by early high achievers being worked hard by their parents or something else while people with innate abilities making progress slower (because most people are not overworked). For the first group they sizzle either because the pressure is removed as they grow up or because they hit their ceiling.
My experience is almost the inverse of what you describe, I never had to work at all until university, I was a top performer until "physique 1: mécanique newtonienne" it was the first time (and the last) I failed at something academic.
That was quite a shock to realize that I had to do the exercises and the homeworks if I wanted to pass. And since I was not use to efforts, I was no longer the top performer in classss where you have to do the exercises to really understand the matter.
I was recognized as extremely clever by teachers and other students but let me assure you that over long enough, discipline (witch I don't really have) and consistent efforts beats cleverness.
I was similar except it happened a bit earlier. In the UK the last compulsory school exam, GCSE, seemed like a memory test to me. I could often just figure out stuff in the actual exam even if I'd only briefly overheard something mentioned in a lesson. I didn't do a single piece of homework once I realised there were no real consequences and messed around in lessons. Got top marks in all the subjects I cared about and median in everything else (like art, where I didn't even bother to hang up my final piece).
A-level is like the stepping stone to university. It's optional and you only do subjects you like. Suddenly you had to actually understand the stuff. It wasn't just a memory test. The first exams I got B all around. I wasn't happy with this so I started doing homework etc and actually understanding things.
Coincidentally, my breakthrough also came with Newtownian mechanics. I was quite good at integration, but I didn't understand why I was doing it. Suddenly the whole thing started to make sense when I realised it was about rates of change etc.
Not sure how your experience contradicts my point exactly. You're not saying you are in the highest ranks at all, so your experience is irrelevant. If you are, you fit the natural talent with no pressure description.
Lower early life performance we with lots of multidisciplinary experience, later life hyperfocus on a specific discipline until world-class levels are reached.
Sounds like they're describing ADHD.
(Side note after the important ADHD joke: there's an old sport textbook called "Periodization" that mentions focusing on breadth rather than depth of sports experience in early life is a better path to olympic-level performance than just going hard in a single sport from a young age.)
It’s amazing how far the pop-culture definition of ADHD has strayed from the medical definition. “Hyperfocus … until world class performance” is in no way consistent with the medical definition of ADHD. I’m well aware that “hyperfocus” is a prominent part of the Reddit and TikTok-ification of ADHD diagnostics, but being able to focus intensely on your job until you perform it at world class levels is decisively not indicative of ADHD. Hyperfocus is not part of official ADHD diagnostic criteria and the only pseudo-studies that have examined it have taken place as self-reported questionnaires with small sample sizes in the era since it became a popular topic on social media, unfortunately.
ADHD is not correlated with high career performance, sadly, and represents a real obstacle for those struggling with it. The current social media trend of equating ADHD to a superpower which propels people to focus intensely and excel is really unfortunate.
Hyperfocus is not about "focusing intensely on your job until you perform it at world-class level". The hyperfocus of ADHD is essentially random and driven by the very same inattentive "monkey mind" that's the defining feature of ADHD itself: it's not necessarily targeted to a productive task.
Those who face this issue can of course try to "gamify" their upcoming tasks to themselves in a way that will hopefully steer that focus in desirable directions, but that's not always easy. The monkey mind also resists ongoing habit formation, which is the tool most non-ADHD folks would generally resort to in order to effectively manage their overall schedule and just be more on-task.
Its not random. The neurodivergent brain lacks the ability to perceive (some aspects of) the virtual social reality as something real and to focus on that. In a startup, where the problems at hand are objectively real, the ADHD hyperfocus can excel. In a typical corporation, where the situation is the opposite, it struggles.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9541695/
It's obviously true that making outcomes more immediately tangible helps make them more appealing to the ADHD brain (that's a very clear kind of "gamification") but I'm not sure how that disagrees with what I said.
> Hyperfocus is not about "focusing intensely on your job until you perform it at world-class level"
I was responding to the comment that compared the high performing people in this article to a case of ADHD.
I agree that the features of ADHD are not consistent with intense, directed focus on specific goals as discussed in the article.
I suspect it's partly diagnostic creep. Either real actual professional creep, or self diagnosis.
Some mental illnessess are extreme versions of traits that are often useful. It's good have one person in the village who frets about dangerous stuff, for example. Anxiety is useful at times.
But as you start to diagnose the very functional people who just need a few points to get a top uni course (or people self diagnose) ... well ... maybe you're picking up far less extreme and maladaptive versions of the trait.
A summary, since the paper isn't open access: https://scientificinquirer.com/2025/12/21/the-counterintuiti...
This source is shit: it doesn't grant open access.
...so some people develop their sills using something like RAD* tooling which lets them develop skills quickly, and some don't and end up taking longer but getting better eventual results?
Also, the ungated part doesn't say how they're measure "top" high-school vs university students. It doesn't match what I've heard about the persistence and consistency of basically all standardized tests; are they using within-school rankings for this? If so, that would fit perfectly with students being sorted during university selection.
.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_application_development
Hardly a recent discovery. This is basically the entire foreword of David Epstein's book called Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
The strength of analogy is one of the more powerful tools humans have. You take findings/experience from a totally different field and use it to escape the local maxima that other field is caught in.
It's a relatively common theme in sciences that someone comes out of nowhere and solves a long standing problem in a field because they don't have the specialized set of biases that keeps everyone else trapped.
IMHO, it's MUCH more common in sciences though, that someone that is expert-level in one field comes into another and thinks they CAN solve a long standing problem in that field quite easily, and then repeatedly falls into all the pitfalls / traps that others in that field learned long ago to avoid (aka Dunning-Kruger). You know, "chemistry is just applied physics", "biology is applied chemistry", etc.. Sure, it's true in one sense, but... No one calculates the wave function of an elephant, for example.
One of the benefits of generalism / learning multiple fields (IMHO, again) is that you realizes that special abilities / skills don't necessarily translate well from one field to another. For example, learning to play the violin is very different from, say, playing billiards, yet becoming good at either one involves learning subtle manipulations of basically similarly-shaped pieces of wood. By involvement in multiple fields, you learn to be careful NOT to bring your "everything is a nail" mentality with you from one field to the next.
[flagged]