>Sure in the end they might not be the next Einstein or President, but having a decent career is certainly not out of their reach if they work for it.
That's my point, though. I wasn't trying to say they end up gas station attendants or completely burn out or something like that, but that their star is very brief before ending up in an unremarkable career for a few dozen years then retiring, like almost everyone else. And, like the football star, although not all disappear after that one moment, almost all of them do. People who make great discoveries in the sciences or create great art tend not to be child prodigies or savants (not even a predominance of them), so I was thinking there were likely factors other than intelligence that have greater importance with relation to those cases. It certainly plays some role, but it's hardly decisive.
I'm not trying to derive pleasure from those that do burn out (which is probably a fairly small group anyway) but, when I ran across the article many years ago, it led me to wonder about what "genius" means and its relation to intelligence. It's rather obvious that what is meant by "genius" is different for different fields, and the importance of raw intelligence would change with each field, but the question of intelligence and genius nonetheless occupied me for long enough that I remember thinking about it at the time, even well over a decade later.