Reported by Maggie Astor, a New York Times journalist covering the intersection of health and politics, a groundbreaking study published in Science has uncovered a counterintuitive finding: child prodigies who rise to prominence in adolescence and focus on a single field are often not the ones who ultimately reach the pinnacle of their industries. Analyzing data from over 34,000 high achievers, the study found that top adult achievers typically follow more diverse and gradual growth paths. They experiment broadly in their early stages, progress steadily, and demonstrate remarkable staying power—offering new insights into understanding and fostering long-term success.

Child Prodigies vs. Late Bloomers: New Research Reveals Differences in Two Paths to Success

According to the new research, child prodigies who achieve fame at a young age—whether rising teenage sports stars, high school students rapidly climbing the ranks in chess, or young scientists making discoveries in their youth—are often not the ones who eventually top their industries as adults. Furthermore, these two groups embark on fundamentally different growth paths from the start.

The study, published in Science, found that exceptional adolescent achievement often stems from intense focus on a single domain: pianists who never touch other instruments, swimmers who avoid track and field. But those who attain the highest achievements in adulthood typically do not exhibit such specialization in their early years; instead, they dabble in multiple fields, maintain lower focus, and do not stand out in early performance.

"The evidence indicates a negative correlation between eventual peak performance and early performance when comparing the highest achievers across domains," the researchers wrote.

Exceptions exist, of course: some rising stars do go on to push the boundaries of human capability. Think Simone Biles or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose extraordinary talent emerged in childhood. But more commonly, those who maintain top-tier status long-term experience relatively slow growth yet ultimately surpass early child prodigies.

The new research analyzed 19 existing datasets covering over 34,000 adult high achievers worldwide, including complete profiles of all Nobel laureates in Chemistry and Physics up to the datasets' publication. Researchers also examined 66 studies on child prodigies and individuals on the "cusp of elite status." The study was conducted by a sports scientist, a sports economist, and two psychology experts.

Researchers note that the "adolescent model"—early specialization in a single field with rapid advancement—has long been regarded as a common path to peak ability because previous studies on exceptional achievement have focused on adolescence. However, the research team was unsure whether these findings could be directly applied to top adult achievers.

They discovered this was not the case.

Those who truly reach the pinnacle of their fields (e.g., Nobel laureates) typically experiment with multiple domains in childhood and improve more gradually over a longer period in their ultimately chosen field.

This pattern held across all domains examined by researchers, including sports, music, science, and chess.

"In domains with vastly different skill structures, starting ages, and peak ages, the growth patterns of world-class performers are surprisingly similar," said Arne Güllich, a sports scientist at the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau in Germany and one of the study's authors, in an interview.

This pattern is evident not only among the absolute top achievers but also among sub-elite high performers—such as Nobel laureates versus national science award winners. Both groups represent high-level achievement, but those who reach the absolute peak tend to have more diverse early experiences and slower progress.

"This is a hopeful finding for those of us who were not child prodigies," said Dean Keith Simonton, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, who peer-reviewed the study but was not involved in its conduct. "Often, the tortoise ultimately outpaces the hare."

The analysis has limitations, however. The data used comes from two types of studies: prospective studies that track high-achieving adolescents over time, and retrospective studies that examine the childhood experiences of adult high achievers. None are randomized controlled trials—meaning children were not randomly assigned to "only one activity" or "multiple activities."

Ellen Winner, senior research associate at Harvard University's Project Zero and a long-time researcher on child prodigies (who was not involved in the new study), expressed a desire to see separate results from prospective and retrospective studies.

She hypothesizes: "Most child prodigies do not reach the top of their fields as adults, but most adults who do reach the top were recognized as 'different' in childhood."

"If so, this means many child prodigies burn out, while those who achieve great things are prodigies who do not exhaust their potential," she wrote. "I suspect late bloomers are rarer than sustained early bloomers." But combining prospective and retrospective data makes this distinction harder to clarify.

Additionally, some achievements are easier to measure—such as Olympic qualification—while others, like cognitive performance, are more difficult to quantify. Dr. Winner notes the study does not clearly explain how childhood cognitive performance was measured. She also points out that in some domains, the study uses adult income as a proxy for achievement—a practice seen in previous research but not necessarily aligned with internal definitions of "success" in those fields.

Dr. Güllich says most top achievers in the analysis "were not the best among their peers when young but showed significant improvement in mid-career."

The study does not draw definitive conclusions about the reasons, but researchers propose three hypotheses—which Dr. Güllich believes likely all play a role:

First, children who try multiple activities have more opportunities to discover their true strengths.

Second, individuals challenged by diverse tasks and contexts in childhood may develop stronger learning abilities.

Third, children who focus all their energy on a single domain are more prone to overuse injuries or mental burnout.

"Many people drop out early because this investment model carries higher risks," Dr. Güllich said. "You might have greater talent in another field—but you'll never know if you never try it."

So, children—feel free to explore new activities. You might just win a Nobel Prize someday!

Reported by Maggie Astor, a New York Times journalist covering the intersection of health and politics, a groundbreaking study published in Science has uncovered a counterintuitive finding: child prodigies who rise to prominence in adolescence and focus on a single field are often not the ones who ultimately reach the pinnacle of their industries. Analyzing data from over 34,000 high achievers, the study found that top adult achievers typically follow more diverse and gradual growth paths. They experiment broadly in their early stages, progress steadily, and demonstrate remarkable staying power—offering new insights into understanding and fostering long-term success.

Child Prodigies vs. Late Bloomers: New Research Reveals Differences in Two Paths to Success

According to the new research, child prodigies who achieve fame at a young age—whether rising teenage sports stars, high school students rapidly climbing the ranks in chess, or young scientists making discoveries in their youth—are often not the ones who eventually top their industries as adults. Furthermore, these two groups embark on fundamentally different growth paths from the start.

The study, published in Science, found that exceptional adolescent achievement often stems from intense focus on a single domain: pianists who never touch other instruments, swimmers who avoid track and field. But those who attain the highest achievements in adulthood typically do not exhibit such specialization in their early years; instead, they dabble in multiple fields, maintain lower focus, and do not stand out in early performance.

"The evidence indicates a negative correlation between eventual peak performance and early performance when comparing the highest achievers across domains," the researchers wrote.

Exceptions exist, of course: some rising stars do go on to push the boundaries of human capability. Think Simone Biles or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose extraordinary talent emerged in childhood. But more commonly, those who maintain top-tier status long-term experience relatively slow growth yet ultimately surpass early child prodigies.

The new research analyzed 19 existing datasets covering over 34,000 adult high achievers worldwide, including complete profiles of all Nobel laureates in Chemistry and Physics up to the datasets' publication. Researchers also examined 66 studies on child prodigies and individuals on the "cusp of elite status." The study was conducted by a sports scientist, a sports economist, and two psychology experts.

Researchers note that the "adolescent model"—early specialization in a single field with rapid advancement—has long been regarded as a common path to peak ability because previous studies on exceptional achievement have focused on adolescence. However, the research team was unsure whether these findings could be directly applied to top adult achievers.

They discovered this was not the case.

Those who truly reach the pinnacle of their fields (e.g., Nobel laureates) typically experiment with multiple domains in childhood and improve more gradually over a longer period in their ultimately chosen field.

This pattern held across all domains examined by researchers, including sports, music, science, and chess.

"In domains with vastly different skill structures, starting ages, and peak ages, the growth patterns of world-class performers are surprisingly similar," said Arne Güllich, a sports scientist at the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau in Germany and one of the study's authors, in an interview.

This pattern is evident not only among the absolute top achievers but also among sub-elite high performers—such as Nobel laureates versus national science award winners. Both groups represent high-level achievement, but those who reach the absolute peak tend to have more diverse early experiences and slower progress.

"This is a hopeful finding for those of us who were not child prodigies," said Dean Keith Simonton, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, who peer-reviewed the study but was not involved in its conduct. "Often, the tortoise ultimately outpaces the hare."

The analysis has limitations, however. The data used comes from two types of studies: prospective studies that track high-achieving adolescents over time, and retrospective studies that examine the childhood experiences of adult high achievers. None are randomized controlled trials—meaning children were not randomly assigned to "only one activity" or "multiple activities."

Ellen Winner, senior research associate at Harvard University's Project Zero and a long-time researcher on child prodigies (who was not involved in the new study), expressed a desire to see separate results from prospective and retrospective studies.

She hypothesizes: "Most child prodigies do not reach the top of their fields as adults, but most adults who do reach the top were recognized as 'different' in childhood."

"If so, this means many child prodigies burn out, while those who achieve great things are prodigies who do not exhaust their potential," she wrote. "I suspect late bloomers are rarer than sustained early bloomers." But combining prospective and retrospective data makes this distinction harder to clarify.

Additionally, some achievements are easier to measure—such as Olympic qualification—while others, like cognitive performance, are more difficult to quantify. Dr. Winner notes the study does not clearly explain how childhood cognitive performance was measured. She also points out that in some domains, the study uses adult income as a proxy for achievement—a practice seen in previous research but not necessarily aligned with internal definitions of "success" in those fields.

Dr. Güllich says most top achievers in the analysis "were not the best among their peers when young but showed significant improvement in mid-career."

The study does not draw definitive conclusions about the reasons, but researchers propose three hypotheses—which Dr. Güllich believes likely all play a role:

First, children who try multiple activities have more opportunities to discover their true strengths.

Second, individuals challenged by diverse tasks and contexts in childhood may develop stronger learning abilities.

Third, children who focus all their energy on a single domain are more prone to overuse injuries or mental burnout.

"Many people drop out early because this investment model carries higher risks," Dr. Güllich said. "You might have greater talent in another field—but you'll never know if you never try it."

So, children—feel free to explore new activities. You might just win a Nobel Prize someday!