Conventional wisdom suggests that the way to get really good at something is to (1) start as early as possible learning the thing and (2) focus exclusively on the thing. This is relevant information for elite schools, sport academies, and other institutions because it leads to, "let's find the best young talent and then further accelerate their skills through discipline-specific practice."
But recent research has found that this typically isn't the case. By looking at more than 34,000 adult international top performers in different domains ranging from classical music composers to Olympic champions, researchers found the following three major features associated with human development (quoted verbatim from here):
Early exceptional performers and later exceptional performers within a domain are rarely the same individuals but are largely discrete populations over time. For example, world top-10 youth chess players and later world top-10 adult chess players are nearly 90% different individuals across time. Top secondary students and later top university students are also nearly 90% different people. Likewise, international-level youth athletes and later international-level adult athletes are nearly 90% different individuals.
Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, and chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Across the highest adult performance levels, peak performance is negatively correlated with early performance.
The pattern of predictors that distinguishes among the highest levels of adult performance is different from the pattern of predictors of early performance. Higher early performance in a domain is associated with larger amounts of discipline-specific practice, smaller amounts of multidisciplinary practice, and faster early discipline-specific performance progress. By contrast, across high levels of adult performance, world-class performance in a domain is associated with smaller amounts of discipline-specific practice, larger amounts of early multidisciplinary practice, and more gradual early discipline-specific performance progress. These predictor effects are closely correlated with one another, suggesting a robust pattern.
In other words, it's a long game:
The most successful and highest-performing adults seem to start off as well-rounded kids.
Cover photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
My dad sent me an article from Canoe Financial over the weekend that included the chart below. What it shows is that corporate equities and mutual fund shares now make up a greater percentage of household wealth in the US than residential real estate for only the second time since 1990.
From a macro perspective, and when you consider the popularity of index funds, this means that American households probably have a lot of their wealth concentrated in high-growth tech stocks. And since these stocks are being driven higher largely due to the promise of AI, there's perhaps a concentration risk for US households.
I'm writing this post from the concourse level of Place Ville Marie Esplanade in Montréal (also known as Galerie PVM) while I wait for my next meeting. Like the PATH in Toronto, the space I'm in is part of an underground network of restaurants, shops, and circulation spaces that runs through downtown Montréal.
But what makes the space I'm in right now particularly noteworthy is that I'm sitting beneath an enormous glass roof supported by 18 glass beams measuring 15 meters long and 0.9 meters tall. So, while I am below grade, I have a clear view of The Ring, Mont-Royal, and the street life happening above me.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the way to get really good at something is to (1) start as early as possible learning the thing and (2) focus exclusively on the thing. This is relevant information for elite schools, sport academies, and other institutions because it leads to, "let's find the best young talent and then further accelerate their skills through discipline-specific practice."
But recent research has found that this typically isn't the case. By looking at more than 34,000 adult international top performers in different domains ranging from classical music composers to Olympic champions, researchers found the following three major features associated with human development (quoted verbatim from here):
Early exceptional performers and later exceptional performers within a domain are rarely the same individuals but are largely discrete populations over time. For example, world top-10 youth chess players and later world top-10 adult chess players are nearly 90% different individuals across time. Top secondary students and later top university students are also nearly 90% different people. Likewise, international-level youth athletes and later international-level adult athletes are nearly 90% different individuals.
Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, and chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Across the highest adult performance levels, peak performance is negatively correlated with early performance.
The pattern of predictors that distinguishes among the highest levels of adult performance is different from the pattern of predictors of early performance. Higher early performance in a domain is associated with larger amounts of discipline-specific practice, smaller amounts of multidisciplinary practice, and faster early discipline-specific performance progress. By contrast, across high levels of adult performance, world-class performance in a domain is associated with smaller amounts of discipline-specific practice, larger amounts of early multidisciplinary practice, and more gradual early discipline-specific performance progress. These predictor effects are closely correlated with one another, suggesting a robust pattern.
In other words, it's a long game:
The most successful and highest-performing adults seem to start off as well-rounded kids.
Cover photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
My dad sent me an article from Canoe Financial over the weekend that included the chart below. What it shows is that corporate equities and mutual fund shares now make up a greater percentage of household wealth in the US than residential real estate for only the second time since 1990.
From a macro perspective, and when you consider the popularity of index funds, this means that American households probably have a lot of their wealth concentrated in high-growth tech stocks. And since these stocks are being driven higher largely due to the promise of AI, there's perhaps a concentration risk for US households.
I'm writing this post from the concourse level of Place Ville Marie Esplanade in Montréal (also known as Galerie PVM) while I wait for my next meeting. Like the PATH in Toronto, the space I'm in is part of an underground network of restaurants, shops, and circulation spaces that runs through downtown Montréal.
But what makes the space I'm in right now particularly noteworthy is that I'm sitting beneath an enormous glass roof supported by 18 glass beams measuring 15 meters long and 0.9 meters tall. So, while I am below grade, I have a clear view of The Ring, Mont-Royal, and the street life happening above me.
The other thing this chart made me wonder about was what it would look like for Canadian households.
According to these net worth indicators released by Statistics Canada in October 2025, real estate as a share of total household assets was sitting at 41.8%. Financial assets as a share of total assets were at 53.4%, but this includes life insurance and pensions, which are not included in the US chart.
If we remove this line item, we're left with "other financial assets" at 37.8%. However, this account also includes cash deposits, bonds, foreign investments, and other receivables, which I also don't think are carried in the US chart. So net-net, Canadian household wealth is composed of real estate at 41.8% and corporate equities at some number below 37.8%.
Real estate is the larger net worth account for Canadian households. Whether this is good or bad is a topic for another post, but there's certainly an argument to be made that Canadians are over-indexing on real estate at the expense of investing in new ideas and businesses.
Cover photo by Daniela Araya on Unsplash
Underground "malls" like Toronto's PATH and Montréal's RÉSO were a somewhat obvious urban solution to inclement weather. But they are often criticized for sucking life underground and making the streets at grade feel dead.
When I've toured my American friends through Toronto's CBD in the past, I've heard comments like, "How come you have no retail downtown? It feels dead." And then I have to cheekily say, "Oh, well, we actually have tons of it, we just decided to hide it all underground so it's harder to find and confusing to navigate."
The way you start to counteract these negatives — lack of street life and challenging wayfinding — is to do what Sid Lee Architecture did masterfully here at Place Ville Marie. To the extent possible, you make grade and below grade feel like one space.
The other thing this chart made me wonder about was what it would look like for Canadian households.
According to these net worth indicators released by Statistics Canada in October 2025, real estate as a share of total household assets was sitting at 41.8%. Financial assets as a share of total assets were at 53.4%, but this includes life insurance and pensions, which are not included in the US chart.
If we remove this line item, we're left with "other financial assets" at 37.8%. However, this account also includes cash deposits, bonds, foreign investments, and other receivables, which I also don't think are carried in the US chart. So net-net, Canadian household wealth is composed of real estate at 41.8% and corporate equities at some number below 37.8%.
Real estate is the larger net worth account for Canadian households. Whether this is good or bad is a topic for another post, but there's certainly an argument to be made that Canadians are over-indexing on real estate at the expense of investing in new ideas and businesses.
Cover photo by Daniela Araya on Unsplash
Underground "malls" like Toronto's PATH and Montréal's RÉSO were a somewhat obvious urban solution to inclement weather. But they are often criticized for sucking life underground and making the streets at grade feel dead.
When I've toured my American friends through Toronto's CBD in the past, I've heard comments like, "How come you have no retail downtown? It feels dead." And then I have to cheekily say, "Oh, well, we actually have tons of it, we just decided to hide it all underground so it's harder to find and confusing to navigate."
The way you start to counteract these negatives — lack of street life and challenging wayfinding — is to do what Sid Lee Architecture did masterfully here at Place Ville Marie. To the extent possible, you make grade and below grade feel like one space.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
