Your analogy is a little biased in that most professional basketball players careers are over by the time they hit their mid-thirties. If they want to go pro then they need to be playing at a high standard in their teens.
Whereas someone talented at math would be productive much longer than that.
G. H. Hardy wrote: "Mathematics is a young man's game." Of course, you can continue to be a mathematician later, but for top performance, especially in terms of novelty, you have to start early.
What is your point? That because athletic ability degrades faster kids should be pushed into sports as soon as possible so they can reap potential benefits, but since math is mental thing and mental acuity declines slower kids should be kept away from mentally demanding things so they can reap the potential benefits at a later date?
Wouldn't both kids be better off if they could just do what they liked? Just because there is more money involved with sports and coaches and teams have noticed that they can get more bang for their buck when they focus recruiting as young as possible shouldn't make any difference if a kid is into chess or math or any other science.
mbeex|1 year ago
defrost|1 year ago
Admittedly some of that was playing a Swiss Charles Dodgson to 15 and 10 year old girls.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_a_German_Princess
arlort|1 year ago
nextlevelwizard|1 year ago
Wouldn't both kids be better off if they could just do what they liked? Just because there is more money involved with sports and coaches and teams have noticed that they can get more bang for their buck when they focus recruiting as young as possible shouldn't make any difference if a kid is into chess or math or any other science.