The flaw with this model is that it doesn't really explain the world, because if you compared most kids who do well on math contests to the average high school honors student, you'd have to argue that their performance in almost every subject besides Band and PhysEd is the result of mental prioritization. Also, observing that an underperformer just didn't mentally prioritize it the same is basically mind-reading; it isn't a refutable observation. We can see the weakness of the argument by using it to explain the effect of age on performance, without finding direct evidence to refute it. But the actual cause is that kids get smarter as they get older. It also fails to explain why kids rank so differently at contests like 24, versus later contests that test a mostly different sort of ability. That kids who do well on math contests like thinking about math can't be taken as a factor in more than a banal sense.
And imagine trying to make the same argument for basketball. Kids with low field goal percentages just don't want it enough?
And imagine trying to make the same argument for basketball. Kids with low field goal percentages just don't want it enough?