A kid who goes deep on a particular skill learns a great lesson of her own powers of discipline and mastery. That lesson applies to whatever other skills she pursues in life, earning herself a high opinion of her own agency that colors most important life choices.

I think the ideal is for someone to have a very deep knowledge of two different fields, or areas of interest, while also having broad general knowledge. This gives people an idea both of how deep human knowledge runs, and how wide. With only one area of interest, some people might come away with the idea that one area is somehow unique and different. With two, there's more reason to conclude that other areas are just as deep.

You can also try to counter your bias by always remembering the adage:

"Specialists will tend to underestimate how well a Generalist can specialize, when they choose to specialize. Generalists will tend to underestimate how deep any given specialty goes."

I'll have to remember that one. In a way, I'm advocating for everyone to be at least two kinds of specialist and generalist at the same time.

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.

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.

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.

I think you missed the nuance of my point. I wasn't saying we should get rid of sports or athleticism or creative en devours that result in entertainment value or inspire emotion. I was saying that the accomplishments in those fields are relative. If Michael Jordan had instead dunked from a foot closer, but that was still better than had been previously seen, would the world have derived less enjoyment? If Phelps or Bolt had broken slightly less impressive records than they had broken would that really matter at all? I'd argue that since the history of humanity has been breaking those records and moving the line forwards again and again and the people where entertained long before the folks you mentioned were born, the answer is pretty obviously "not really". But a medical breakthrough that impacts millions of lives, not abstractly but in measurable improvements to health and longevity? It's a whole different kind of thing. Reducing the cost of clean energy and pushing back the grasp of climate change? Stuff like that vs an impressive slam dunk and I just don't see why it's vitally important to ever force-feed a child a sport in the hopes that they'll break that kind of record.

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.

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.

There's a huge amount of survivor bias in these arguments...

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.

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.

Connor McDavid is a top notch athlete who didn't play other sports. Has said he'd be horrible at them.

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.

It's not specializing when you play a bunch of things, that's the opposite of specializing.

Also: During the 1992 season, his best year in the majors, Sanders hit .304 for the team, stole 26 bases, and led the NL with 14 triples in 97 games. During the 1989 season, he hit a major league home run and scored a touchdown in the NFL in the same week, becoming the only player ever to do so. Sanders is also the only man to play in both a Super Bowl and a World Series. In four games of the 1992 World Series, Sanders batted .533 with 4 runs, 8 hits, 2 doubles, and 1 RBI while playing with a broken bone in his foot.

Bo Jackson competed as a sprinter, hurdler, jumper, thrower and decathlete in College.

You can specialize and play a bunch of things. Pretty much everyone does it. You can be a chess prodigy and still play checkers, monopoly, video games, etc. Using your logic, nobody specializes because they all do other things.

As for Sanders, I'm well aware of his football and baseball careers because I was a kid who grew up watching him in the 90s. 1 "decent" season doesn't make a "phenom". Okay? In 1992, sanders didn't make the all-star team, he didn't get over 100 hits, he played less than 100 games. Sanders career batting average is the .260s. He was nothing special in baseball. Unless your definition of "phenomenal" is different than mine. Deion Sanders was phenomenal in football. He is arguably the greater cornerback in NFL history and a hall of famer. If deion sanders was a phenomenal center fielder, then what is ken griffey, kirby puckett, etc?

As for bo jackson, how about he specialized in track&field, baseball and football. You can argue all you want, bo jackson specialized. He didn't go into curling, badminton, tennis, hockey, etc. He didn't "generalize". He was a rare phenomenal athlete who could specialize in multiple sports.

If you disagree then your definition of phenomenal and specializing is different and we are simply never going to agree and I'll just leave it at that.

Not necessarily. My niece is an excellent gymnast and loves it, and it's the only sport she's ever done. I imagine when you're one of the best at your activity you tend to enjoy it more.

Don't have to be the absolute best. Just have to be good enough to impress yourself. (Provided one has a good perspective on what good really is.)

Probability dictates that there are people who find their passion with limited guesswork, and hopefully your niece is one of them. If a major part of enjoyment of a sport is how good you are relative to your peers, however, that is unlikely to last. AFAIK gymnastics has a very short timeframe for most women to be competitive as well, exacerbating that fact.

Only recognizing your own talents is more than random probability, and can be achieved at an early age for the truly talented. It's not hard to imagine that those who are legitimately talented be it in art, athletics, or academia, take pleasure in their activities not only for the competition, but in witnessing and experiencing the progression of their skill.