3 ms·

I believe this really depends on the field you're looking at. In pursuits where extraordinary levels of raw ability is absolutely paramount, precocity will be t

I believe this really depends on the field you're looking at. In pursuits where extraordinary levels of raw ability is absolutely paramount, precocity will be there 9/10 (or more). The best example is the quintessential chess genius. It's hard to find a chess champion who wasn't a precocious talent. It's the same with concert pianists. In other fields, some raw ability (but not necessarily an obvious precocious talent) is still necessary but other factors are also paramount. In the field of literature, richness of experience and maturity can take an author to a higher level. In various fields of scientific research, decades of accumulated knowledge/experience can be pivotal to success. My point is that in some fields, it makes complete sense to equate genius with precocity, but in others it makes little sense.

InclinedPlane 8y ago
> "The best example is the quintessential chess genius. It's hard to find a chess champion who wasn't a precocious talent." Hold on a second there. Becoming a chess champion is effectively a full time job, and it takes a tremendous amount of work to acquire the skill to do so. Who, as an adult, is going to pursue that as a career if they haven't been playing chess tournaments since childhood? I would argue that there really isn't a path to becoming a chess champion except via being a precocious talent. Without that hope the family and the individual isn't going to pursue it as an option. Nobody is out there earning degrees in professional chess and then going into office work or silicon valley or what-have-you, it's just an extremely specialized field.
- grenoire 8y ago
  I agree, the causation is likely due to the fact that kids who are good at playing chess early on keep playing chess, which by default gives them years of additional training and experience more. As opposed to someone who has only started at 18, they are going to have a hard time competing not due to their intelligence or genius-factor, but lack of training.
empath75 8y ago
My kid is 2 years old and knows the names of like 40 different dinosaurs. Does that mean he's a precocious paleontological genius? If I tell him he's a dinosaur genius and enroll him in paleontology training classes and encourage him to spend every waking hour learning more about dinosaurs to the exclusion of everything else, he surely would be, no?

InclinedPlane 8y ago

> "The best example is the quintessential chess genius. It's hard to find a chess champion who wasn't a precocious talent." Hold on a second there. Becoming a chess champion is effectively a full time job, and it takes a tremendous amount of work to acquire the skill to do so. Who, as an adult, is going to pursue that as a career if they haven't been playing chess tournaments since childhood? I would argue that there really isn't a path to becoming a chess champion except via being a precocious talent. Without that hope the family and the individual isn't going to pursue it as an option. Nobody is out there earning degrees in professional chess and then going into office work or silicon valley or what-have-you, it's just an extremely specialized field.

grenoire 8y ago
I agree, the causation is likely due to the fact that kids who are good at playing chess early on keep playing chess, which by default gives them years of additional training and experience more. As opposed to someone who has only started at 18, they are going to have a hard time competing not due to their intelligence or genius-factor, but lack of training.

empath75 8y ago

My kid is 2 years old and knows the names of like 40 different dinosaurs. Does that mean he's a precocious paleontological genius? If I tell him he's a dinosaur genius and enroll him in paleontology training classes and encourage him to spend every waking hour learning more about dinosaurs to the exclusion of everything else, he surely would be, no?