interesting study about specializing early vs not

[Anonymous]

Tangentially made me wonder, what becomes of those spelling bee kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And no, I don’t think that playing Division 1 is truly extraordinary.

It seems like you’ve moved the goalposts a bit. Here’s a summary of the report.

Anonymous wrote:This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well.

If less than 1% of youth sports athletes make it to a D1 team and even fewer remain on a team all 4 years what are the outcomes you’re measuring against? It would appear to be different than the OP’s article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

Big deal d1 . This is talking the top Olympic athletes concert pianists chess grandmasters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

Big deal d1 . This is talking the top Olympic athletes concert pianists chess grandmasters

Read the quoted part in 20:30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well. And they found that there was very little overlap between early achievers who "maxxed out" v/s those who reached elite levels but later. The other takeaway was multidisciplinary interests and focus. So essentially they came out against the East German model of channeling kids (prodigies) into a narrow mould and hyperspecializing.

I believe it but there are exceptions, like gymnastics and figure skating, where girls need to get their triples/quads before puberty, and then the struggle is to hang on. There's no getting around early specialization in those sports, but their training is broader than it used to be.

[Anonymous]

NYTines quotes a Harvard researcher who provided a very convincing critique of this paper. Apparently, it combines two kinds of studies - the ones that tracked child prodigies and the ones that looked at the backgrounds of the adults defined as successful. There is no split of the results of the two types, and the following might be happening: most child prodigies eventually flame out, but most super successful adults were recognized as gifted children, late bloomers are a minority. Also, some of the underlying studies on adults measured success based on income, meaning that a Wall Street quant would be considered more successful than an academic who won the Fields medal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a gifted kid who loves novelty and the chase of catching up. His interests change every year and he has a very varied list of things that he is quite good at, but nothing he is amazing at, even though it seems clear that if he chose something and did it consistently he would be amazing.

I always wonder how this will play out as an adult. I am not worried just curious.

They call this jack of all trades, master of nothing. It’s not a bad way to be. You get to learn all these activities and learning new things can be fun. You just won’t be a starter or team leader, you’ll always be in the middle somewhere. Advantage in adulthood is you’ll pick things up faster than others who played it safe and wouldn’t try new things once pat elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Where is her boyfriend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well. And they found that there was very little overlap between early achievers who "maxxed out" v/s those who reached elite levels but later. The other takeaway was multidisciplinary interests and focus. So essentially they came out against the East German model of channeling kids (prodigies) into a narrow mould and hyperspecializing.

I believe it but there are exceptions, like gymnastics and figure skating, where girls need to get their triples/quads before puberty, and then the struggle is to hang on. There's no getting around early specialization in those sports, but their training is broader than it used to be.

I was going to say my son does gymnastics, it feels impossible not to specialize because of practice requirements. You simply can't get the skills or strength without lots of practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well. And they found that there was very little overlap between early achievers who "maxxed out" v/s those who reached elite levels but later. The other takeaway was multidisciplinary interests and focus. So essentially they came out against the East German model of channeling kids (prodigies) into a narrow mould and hyperspecializing.

I believe it but there are exceptions, like gymnastics and figure skating, where girls need to get their triples/quads before puberty, and then the struggle is to hang on. There's no getting around early specialization in those sports, but their training is broader than it used to be.

I was going to say my son does gymnastics, it feels impossible not to specialize because of practice requirements. You simply can't get the skills or strength without lots of practice.

It’s not impossible. You are buying into the adult-led system that pushes it. There may be (rare) cases where a 9 year old actually chooses this but it is mostly the adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a gifted kid who loves novelty and the chase of catching up. His interests change every year and he has a very varied list of things that he is quite good at, but nothing he is amazing at, even though it seems clear that if he chose something and did it consistently he would be amazing.

I always wonder how this will play out as an adult. I am not worried just curious.

It will be fine. Better than fine because true creativity usage really something Ai can easily replicate. All his experiences will coalesce into something uniquely him. I say this as a lawyer and PhD documentary filmmaker who started an Emmy-winning and Oscar‐nominated production company who uses all of my random interests professionally as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gifted kid who loves novelty and the chase of catching up. His interests change every year and he has a very varied list of things that he is quite good at, but nothing he is amazing at, even though it seems clear that if he chose something and did it consistently he would be amazing.

I always wonder how this will play out as an adult. I am not worried just curious.

It will be fine. Better than fine because true creativity usage really something Ai can easily replicate. All his experiences will coalesce into something uniquely him. I say this as a lawyer and PhD documentary filmmaker who started an Emmy-winning and Oscar‐nominated production company who uses all of my random interests professionally as an adult.

AI CAN'T easily replicate i mean!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well. And they found that there was very little overlap between early achievers who "maxxed out" v/s those who reached elite levels but later. The other takeaway was multidisciplinary interests and focus. So essentially they came out against the East German model of channeling kids (prodigies) into a narrow mould and hyperspecializing.

I believe it but there are exceptions, like gymnastics and figure skating, where girls need to get their triples/quads before puberty, and then the struggle is to hang on. There's no getting around early specialization in those sports, but their training is broader than it used to be.

True but any sport where going through puberty is a disadvantage is not a sport I encouraged my kids to participate in.

[Anonymous]

Just like all the academic superstars in high school are going to grow up to have boring jobs and ordinary lives. It’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like all the academic superstars in high school are going to grow up to have boring jobs and ordinary lives. It’s fine.

Very true