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
"Child prodigies are more likely to become elite performers" is an equally accurate and less misleading title.

>>energy+mc
Equally imprecise.

“Child prodigies are more likely to become elite performers than they are to become non-elite performers”

Vs

“Child prodigies are more likely than non-child prodigies to become elite performers"

Which is it?

>>sherma+xd
Neither. That's what reading the article is for.

>>owenpa+Yf
My comment was on the attempted retitling of the article. Agree that neither represent the actual article.