zlacker

>>i7l+(OP)
> Around 90% of superstar adults had not been superstars as children, while only 10% of top-level kids had gone on to become exceptional adults (see chart 1). It is not just that exceptional performance in childhood did not predict exceptional performance as an adult. The two were actually negatively correlated, says Dr Güllich.

Even if "only" 10% of elite kids go on to become elite adults, 10% is orders of magnitude larger than the base percentage of adults who are elite athletes, musicians, etc. This doesn't sound "uncorrelated" to me so much as "not as strongly correlated as one might expect."

And describing something that happens 10% of the time as "rare" sounds a bit weird, like referring to left-handedness (also about 1 in 10) as rare.

>>FeteCo+Sb
You also need to know the percentage of children that become prodigies before you can calculate exactly how much more likely they are to become elite adults.

e.g. If 1% of children are prodigies, prodigies are around 10x as likely to become elite as non-prodigies.

If 0.1% of children are prodigies, prodigies are around 100x as likely to become elite as non-prodigies.

Or in the rather unlikely case that 10% of children are prodigies, non-prodigies become elite at exactly the same rate as prodigies - 10%.