Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact

The linked article seems to be misleading on the true purpose of the research.

The source: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239

From the source:

The random-impact rule allows us to develop a quantitative model, which systematically untangles the role of productivity and luck in each scientific career.

The model predicts that truly high-impact discoveries require a combination of high Q and luck (p) and that increased productivity alone cannot substantially enhance the chance of a very high impact work.

(Paraphrased) Where Q = Capability of scientist and potential impact of the chosen problem.

PDF available from one of the authors: http://www.dashunwang.com/pdf/Sinatra2016-Science.pdf

I don't like when the idea is taken to extreme and parents force their kids to get as far as possible as young as possible. For example young pop stars competitions and similar. After all brilliant people don't always get the credit they deserve during their lifetime, e.g Tesla (died alone in hotel room talking to pigeons), Mozart (buried in unmarked grave), Lavoisier (executed in French revolution), list goes on and on

Still barely eligible for a Fields medal, although I will have to work fast. Not eligible for moronic 20 under 20.

I was born too old to be brilliant.

TLDR; No.