Many of you probably have seen a headline talking about a 6-7 year-old getting a STEM related degree in a university and/or doing something considered advanced in those fields.

I don't have a reference right know, but people who have studied topics about history of math/natural sciences probably know that many important authors published papers at a young age (20-30 years-old) and were working in difficult theories in their childhood and teenager years.

Despite all of that, I have never really seen any child or teen capable of articulate methodologically relevant arguments on Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, Politics, Economics and the such. I mean, I never heard about child/teen prodigies being compared to Marx or Hegel, but I hear a lot about them being compared to Newton or Einstein.

I have seen many child prodigies memorize the world map or names of world leaders, but never heard about a child talking/writing about advanced topics on Kant's Ethics or Marxian Economics.

Another thing I noticed is that many important authors in STEM fields tend to be young, while in Humanities/Social Sciences is the opposite, that is, they're usually old. Why is this so? Or am I wrong?

I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but I'm really curious about the answer. Is there something to do with the method used in those disciplines? The amount of academic literature required to reach a certain level of proficiency or the like? Or am I just failing in social media sensationalism and those children/teens aren't as bright as the journalists depict them?