Exceptional performers play a central role in advancing knowledge and addressing major global challenges. Because of this, societies have a strong interest in understanding how outstanding talent develops. A new review published in the journal Science argues that many widely used approaches to gifted education and talent development are built on incorrect assumptions. For the first time, an international and interdisciplinary research team has brought together evidence on how world-class performers emerge in science, classical music, chess, and sports.
Longstanding Assumptions About Talent Development
For many years, research on giftedness and expertise has relied on a familiar framework. Exceptional achievement was thought to depend on early signs of high performance, such as excelling in school subjects, sports competitions, or musical performances, combined with specific abilities like intelligence, physical coordination, or musicality. These early advantages were believed to require many years of intensive, discipline-focused training to lead to elite success.
Based on this view, most talent programs aim to identify top-performing children as early as possible and then accelerate their progress through highly specialized training. However, new findings from a team led by Arne Güllich, professor of sports science at RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau, suggest that this strategy may not be the best way to cultivate long-term excellence.
Why Earlier Studies Fell Short
Until recently, most research on giftedness focused on young people and sub-elite performers. These groups included school and college students, youth athletes, young chess players, and musicians studying at conservatories. Over time, evidence from adult world-class athletes began to raise doubts about conclusions drawn from these limited samples.
“Traditional research into giftedness and expertise did not sufficiently consider the question of how world-class performers at peak performance age developed in their early years,” Arne Güllich explains. The goal of the current Review was therefore to examine how top performers actually progressed during childhood and adolescence.
To do this, Güllich assembled an international research team that included Michael Barth, assistant professor of sports economics at the University of Innsbruck, D. Zach Hambrick, professor of psychology at Michigan State University, and Brooke N. Macnamara, professor of psychology at Purdue University. Their findings are now published in Science.
Pooling Evidence Across Multiple Fields
The research team reanalyzed large datasets from numerous earlier studies. In total, they examined the developmental histories of 34,839 elite performers from around the world. The group included Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, Olympic medalists, the world’s top chess players, and leading classical music composers.
By combining data from these diverse fields, the researchers were able, for the first time, to compare how world-class performers develop across disciplines that differ widely in skills and demands.
Early Standouts Rarely Become Adult Superstars
One of the most important conclusions is that elite performers tend to follow a developmental path that differs sharply from traditional expectations. “And a common pattern emerges across the different disciplines,” Güllich notes.
First, the children who perform best at a young age are usually not the same individuals who reach the highest levels later in life. Second, those who eventually achieved world-class status generally showed steady and gradual improvement early on and were not among the top performers in their age group. Third, future elite performers typically did not focus on a single discipline early in life. Instead, they explored a range of activities, such as different academic subjects, musical styles, sports, or professions (e.g., different subjects of study, genres of music, sports, or professions).
Why Broad Experience May Matter
The researchers propose several explanations for these unexpected patterns. “We propose three explanatory hypotheses for discussion,” says Güllich.
The search-and-match hypothesis suggests that trying multiple disciplines increases the chances of eventually finding the best personal fit. The enhanced-learning-capital hypothesis argues that learning in varied areas strengthens overall learning capacity, making it easier to continue improving later at the highest level within a chosen field. The limited-risks hypothesis suggests that engaging in more than one discipline reduces the likelihood of career-limiting problems, such as unhealthy work-rest imbalances, burnout, becoming stuck in an activity that no longer brings satisfaction, or injuries in psychomotor disciplines (sports, music).
As Güllich summarizes, “Those who find an optimal discipline for themselves, develop enhanced potential for long-term learning, and have reduced risks of career-hampering factors, have improved chances of developing world-class performance.”
Rethinking How Young Talent Is Supported
What do these findings mean for parents, educators, and policymakers? According to Güllich, the evidence points to a clear message.
“Here’s what the evidence suggests: Don’t specialize in just one discipline too early. Encourage young people and provide them opportunities to pursue different areas of interest. And promote them in two or three disciplines.” These areas do not have to be closely related. Pairings like language and mathematics, or geography and philosophy, can be equally valuable. A well-known example is Albert Einstein and his violin—one of the most important physicists, who was also deeply engaged with music from an early age.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The authors argue that these insights should guide a shift toward evidence-based talent development policies. Program leaders and decision-makers have an opportunity to move away from early specialization toward approaches that support exploration and long-term growth.
As Güllich concludes, “This may enhance opportunities for the development of world-class performers—in science, sports, music, and other fields.”
Reference: “Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance” by Arne Güllich, Michael Barth, David Z. Hambrick and Brooke N. Macnamara, 18 December 2025, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adt7790
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
6 Comments
I agree with all three of the hypotheses supporting the findings. The difficulty with following these polymath career paths is that you don’t always have time to achieve excellence in your chose field and that career missteps can be held against you.
90% perspiration (practice and dedication); 10% inspiration. Decent teachers when young and genetics when more mature.
I was a gifted student as a child but no one cared. Decades later I asked my mom why she didn’t have me transferred to a school for gifted children and she said there weren’t any. My mom sabotaged my life every chance she got.
You have to grow up in a healthy functional family in order to be successful in life. Supportive dialed-in parents who actually care about your welfare, your wellbeing and your future are essential. Most people do not have such good fortune.
I know what you mean, Jennifer. I was a gifted student, but my mother kicked me out of home at 16, 11 months after my dad died, as she said she would have more money on her benefit for herself if I was gone. Many years later I found out I was entitled to my own study allowance, but she withheld that from me. So many women have no loyalty , not even to their own kids.
Really interesting. I do wonder the relation to Neurodivergence has with being acknowledged as gifted early on. I was highlighted as gifted and later on was diagnosed with adhd and ocd. The subject I was identified as gifted in worked well with my brain and was a special interest at the time.
I also wonder if the fact that this is highlighted in children and the possibly pressure being then put on these children to continue this removes the element of joy for them and adds stress instead. Just my little wonderings as an educator and my experience of how self efficacy goes hand it hand with emotional wellbeing.
Really interesting. I do wonder the relation to Neurodivergence has with being acknowledged as gifted early on. I was highlighted as gifted and later on was diagnosed with adhd and ocd. The subject I was identified as gifted in worked well with my brain and was a special interest at the time.
I also wonder if the fact that this is highlighted in children and the possibly pressure being then put on these children to continue this removes the element of joy for them and adds stress instead. Just my little wonderings as an educator and my experience of how self efficacy goes hand it hand with emotional wellbeing.