Hey! Thanks for writing this article. However, I think it would be better if you left out the learn 100x faster than anyone else. I didnt see any proof to support this argument in the article. Yes, Young learnt a 4 year curriculum in 1 year, thats 4x faster. And he didnt do all the things that normal students do, so maybe his learning was more 2–3x. Learning 2–3x faster than someone else is phenomenal, and is a sign of a great learner. 10x faster is probably world-class (but these things are hard to compare).

Trying to become a master chess player in month for example, takes a long time. I would love to hear the record for anyone to achieve this, but I doubt anyone has made it in under 3 years (of extreme amounts of studying). And they probably already had amazing learning skills + other relatable useful skills, like ability to focus, critical thinking and logic.

So, my point is, I think you should downgrade the 100x, to something more like 2–10x, which is still amazing;)