I once listened to a scientific presentation that was interesting, but I don't remember the professor's name or whether his hypotheses have panned out long-term. That said, he flipped the script on the usual take on research trying to understand why some people respond to early adversity by going off the rails while others seem to trek through it relatively unaffected with positive outcomes. Usually the research focus had been on what differed in a person who would withstand the adversity without asking whether there was a tradeoff for the decreased vulnerability to early adversity. He then went on and presented initial evidence that, on the hand, the individuals that can do all right no matter what, they tended to never particularly excel, while on the other hand, individuals sensitive to early adversity tended to either crash hard or soar higher.

The idea was, thinking about species fitness, it made sense for some of the population that can make it through the hard times, and some of the population that can really take advantage of the good times, even if that meant very poor outcomes in the bad times...It's a hedging-like evolutionary strategy to try to make the most, at the population level, with what you are given.

Anyway, I found it provacative to think about.