To avoid seeming to beg the question, I'll call late bloomers experimentalists and the early bloomers (pure) conceptualists. Okay. It may be that conceptualis

To avoid seeming to beg the question, I'll call late bloomers experimentalists and the early bloomers (pure) conceptualists. Okay. It may be that conceptualists have a very natural peak in their early years because of two factors: a learning peak and a neural peak. For conceptualists, concepts are grasped, mastered and built on quickly, but are explored in their learning. Once they absorb a subject, they get tenaciously attached to worthless novelty, they find new things, or they're just not able to think about things in the same creative way. That's what I mean by a learning peak. Second, to go further out on a limb, could there be a neural peak? There are many late-blooming artists, but how many late-blooming mathematicians? Not many. Since theirs is the epitome of conceptual work, there might be something natural to it. One suspects that the, let's say, spark of creativity in conceptualists may actually consume neural connections which cannot be regained. It's interesting to think of and compare some notables in these terms. Edison, Fuller, Kubrick, Lucas, etc. It would be instructive to see examples of late-blooming non-experimentalists, for example. I also think that there are many fields where artists are encouraged make the transition from one approach to another, such as the actor that becomes a director. Perhaps this subject encompasses much of the difficulty of the artist at mid-life, maybe even that of Malcolm Gladwell.