Yes, I have found this to be true from experience. With my eldest, I listened to everyone else’s advice to stimulate a gifted child from an early age. She started violin, ballet & swimming lessons at age 3, athletics at age 5 and was the youngest member of her school chess team. She also had guitar & singing lessons. She excelled in everything although it was challenging for me to juggle these activities with my work so I was dismayed that by age 11, she pretty much lost interest in everything (though she continues to excel in academia).
I was so disheartened by her abandoning all her extracurricular activities after years of investment that I didn’t really bother doing anything for my younger two. The only activity I organised for my son (who is six years younger) was martial arts and that was mainly in the hope that he would develop some self discipline as his behaviour as a toddler had been very difficult to manage. He did however have full access to the internet. I was very surprised that despite not having the same formal lessons & coaching, he started to excel at the same things and surpass her achievements. He taught himself how to play & compose music (has won Eisteddfod prizes), play chess, speedcube and he researched and developed excellent techniques for swimming, running (different techniques for sprint & cross country) and field events. He is still quite passionate about most of his interests despite focusing now on academia as he is entering senior high school. I strongly suspect that the difference is ownership.
ETA: My youngest loves dancing. She doesn’t take exams but her aptitude & love for the activity is sufficiently evident that she usually ends up front row. Her dance teacher provides her transportation.
