Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance
science.org103 points by colincooke 8 hours ago
103 points by colincooke 8 hours ago
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
[0] https://www.kechuang.org/reader/pdf/web/viewer?file=%2Fr%2F3...
> 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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".
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.
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.
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).
A summary, since the paper isn't open access: https://scientificinquirer.com/2025/12/21/the-counterintuiti...
[flagged]