Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance

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.

Uncorrelated attributes:

   y
   │   ∙                
   │    ∙∙ IIIIIII      
   │     E∙∙IIIIIIII    
   │    EEEE∙∙IIIIIII   
   │    EEEEEE∙∙IIIII   
   │    EEEEEEEE∙∙III   
   │     EEEEEEEEE∙∙    
   │       EEEEEEE  ∙∙  
   │                  ∙ 
   └───────────────────x

Correlated attributes:

   y
   │  ∙              
   │   ∙∙   IIII   
   │     ∙∙IIIIII  
   │      E∙∙IIIII   
   │     EEEE∙III    
   │    EEEEEE∙∙     
   │     EEEE   ∙∙   
   │       E      ∙∙ 
   │                ∙
   └─────────────────x

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.

[0] https://www.kechuang.org/reader/pdf/web/viewer?file=%2Fr%2F3...

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.

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.

"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".

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.

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.