[anthuman]

Sure. But then we won't have mozart or lebron james or turing or messi or most of the olympic athletes, etc.

It's a question of breadth vs depth. Specialization vs generalization.

I suppose most kids should be given a generalized "education". But if a kid is precocious or talented, then specialization makes sense.

Whatever happens, everyone lives with the "what if" or questions about the road not taken.

[krisroadruck]

Call me crazy, but as a society, what do we lose if our best athletes are less good than the ones we have now? This argument maybe makes sense in STEM fields but to me at least it falls flat on its face if the loss is some number of seconds off the fastest mile ran, or cm's off the highest vertical leap.

[anthuman]

It depends on whether you think non-STEM endeavors like athletic performance or art enriches society.

Does michael jordan dunking from the free throw line enrich society? Does mozart's music enrich society?

Did Bolt or Phelps breaking records at the olympics affect society or humanity? I'd say yes. Beyond the inspirational and the aspirational, it also pushed humans limits further.

Does art ( physical, musical, literary, etc ) matter? I'd say it matters, maybe even more than "STEM". But that's an open-ended philosophical discussion.

Athletic endeavors also help advance science as well. There is a science of athletics/athleticism. Striving for athletic excellence could drive genetic, biological and technological advancement and vice versa.

[maloney]

That goes counter to what this article is saying with the whole "Roger Dad" approach. He gives many examples where people took the general approach to start, specialized late and rose to the top.

[anthuman]

Right. And I'm giving examples of prodigies who made it. My point is that "one size fits all" doesn't work.

I'm sure for every Tiger Woods or Serena Williams, there are late bloomers or generalists who thrived. For every example, there is a counterexample.

The blanket statement "You don't want a child prodigy" is simply false. Sometimes you want child prodigies if you can provide a great environment for them to thrive in.

I don't think Tiger Wood or Serena Williams would be where they are if they "generalized" and then decided to specialize later in life. Certain endeavors benefit from early commitment. Not always of course. Hakeem Olajuwon was a great NBA center who started playing basketball in his late teens. But then again, his size and pure athleticism allowed him to overcome late specialization. I don't think it would have worked had be been a point guard.

[soperj]

Lebron played football as well. Most olympic athletes likely played other sports before picking up the sport they're competing in. No one grows up specializing in javelin, discus, shotput, rowing, decathlon etc, etc. There's also all the multi-sport athletes that were phenomenal - Jordan, Gretzky, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Jackie Robinson all come to mind.

[LanceH]

Lebron played football because he's 6'8" 250lbs and a supreme athlete. Being a top notch athlete causes one to play more sports, not the other way around.

[anthuman]

I know lebron played football. I'm sure he played some baseball and soccer too.

Everyone you listed specialized in a particular sport. Specializing in a particular sport doesn't mean that's all you do. You can specialize in hockey but also play baseball or basketball for fun, etc. And if you are exceptionally gifted, nothing prevents you from "specializing" in two sports. But the point is that you "specialize".

I wouldn't call Jordan, Gretzky, Sanders or Robinson "phenomenal" "multi-sport" athletes. Jordan wasn't a phenomenal baseball player. Neither was Deion Sanders. I've never heard of gretzky being "phenomenal" outside of hockey. I only know of Robinson from baseball. And Bo Jackson specialized in two sports and he was phenomenal in both.

Once again, you can specialize in a sport and play other sports.