8 ms·

> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some peopl

> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.

felipemnoa 9y ago
A You that trains will be better than a You that does not train.
- eachro 9y ago
  This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.
  - projektir 9y ago
    We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.
    - eachro 9y ago
      "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.
      - projektir 9y ago
        > What things are you talking about? What is at stake? "Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state) I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into moralism. Like this example here: > the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies You're saying this as if these things are not related. If people repeatedly get the message that the only thing stopping them from being a great mathematician is hard work, that message better be correct, or there will be social consequences. It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. > this kind of thinking is unproductive The truth is never unproductive.
noahc 9y ago
Do you really believe this? Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?
- mooseburger 9y ago
  Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1... "Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - moufestaphio 9y ago
    Pretty bad example. Dude was a semi-retired PROFESSIONAL tennis player. Who had been ranked as high as 38th in the world. He obviously had a fuck ton of training, was just 'retired' when he played the game.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
twoquestions 9y ago
I can't think of an instance where this is true for normal people. I can see an untrained 250lb person beating a 100lb one-armed boxer, but outside such extreme disparities, training >> innate ability, at least in my experience.
- Anderkent 9y ago
  Most mental jobs are like this? Programming is notoriously difficult for people without the right mindset, and the right mindset is difficult to teach. During my degree I've met many people who've worked really hard, much harder than I did, and some of them quite smart - but just couldn't learn to write good code. They've eventually switched degrees or dropped out, because there's only so long you can try something for when you obviously aren't achieving much.
- saulrh 9y ago
  > for normal people Sure is a good No True Scotsman you've got there. And I'm not even sure you'd be right ignoring that; recall that sports like boxing and MMA separate people into weight classes that are ten pounds wide. In other words, those sports think that, within the bounds of "professional", there is no amount of innate ability or training that can balance out a 25-pound difference in weight. But even if you were right about reachable levels of ability, you fail to realize that the problem is less about the maximum reachable level and more about the ease of reaching a competitive level. Sure, most people can train up to run a marathon. But some people will take a year to do that and some people will take three month. And that kind of difference is crippling. Trying to get a degree in a one-year skill will cost you more in time and stress than trying to get a degree in a one-month skill, so much more that you may be out-competed and fail or simply collapse under the increased strain. Furthermore, when looking at Real Life, it's not just about whether you can Get Good at a single skill that you can't choose. It's about how good you can be overall. It's impressive when a 100lb one-armed boxer beats an untrained 250lb person through pure skill because it indicates just how much time that boxer must have spent training to do that. But do we think that the "untrained person" sat on their ass that whole time? No. They spent that time playing chess. And as a result, while the boxer trains their ass off and has a fantastic day and somehow, against all odds, manages to beat the untrained person in a boxing ring... if they squared off across a chessboard the "untrained person" would casually style all over the boxer in between rounds of candy crush. So yes. Training >>> innate skill, more so for some skills than others. But don't let that make you think that genetics are fair.
losteric 9y ago
Does that matter? Do you take pride in what you've accomplished, or is the focus on who's better? I'll never "catch up" to Musk, but I'm better than most people simply by trying my own business ideas.
- rankam 9y ago
  I don't know, doesn't the outcome matter? Trying is admirable, but if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?
  - nikki93 9y ago
    no because what you’ve learned by trying, you can tell other people. causality is complex, and it’s path-dependent not event-dependent.
    - rankam 9y ago
      Sure, but this implies that you don't learn things while "not trying". Of course you learn things while "not trying", albeit different things.
  - rizzom5000 9y ago
    > at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no? I think it depends on how you fail though. If you learn something from the experience, your odds of succeeding on the next try increase. Many goals are achieved through a succession of failures.
    - rankam 9y ago
      I agree with your statement - my point is that there seems to be this prevailing idea that you can't learn unless you try to build something by yourself which ignores reality. Sure, if you try to start a business/project/idea you're going to learn a lot along the way, but if you don't strike out on your own you're still going to have experiences and learn.
  - 9y ago
booleandilemma 9y ago
I agree that genetics is an important foundation, but we shouldn’t let it overshadow the hours of training professional athletes go through and the discipline they have. Good genes or not, it still takes a lot of effort to get to where they are.
k__ 9y ago
Getting in shape is accomplishable for almost everyone. It's just not done in the same way for everyone...
munchbunny 9y ago
Some people will just start a standard deviation above others, but when it comes to talents or traits you build careers on, those people are rare. I think the important point is that most people can move themselves up a standard deviation or more with dedicated practice, even in areas like creativity. While they might not become geniuses, they can certainly develop quite a respectable level of talent.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do." This is clearer in some fields than others -- particularly in fields where there are child prodigies, like in chess, music, or mathematics. In other fields, child prodigies are rare or perhaps even non-existent. There are, to my knowledge, no child prodigies who've written brilliant novels, or earned the Nobel Prize for Literature (as flawed a measure of talent as it is). There are no children who've composed poems which are considered to be among the greatest in the world. These fields tend to draw upon a whole life's worth of experience -- something that children obviously lack and can't make up for through "winning the genetic lottery".
- Retric 9y ago
  Few books are written by kids which confuses the issue. If only one in 100,000 books is great and prodigies have written less than 100,000 books then you should not expect any great books. On the other hand plenty of great books have been written by people in their 20's which is a long way from a full life.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    So why aren't they writing books? They're making music, playing chess, and doing math -- often at much higher levels than many adults. Why not books?
    - Retric 9y ago
      There are plenty of books written by people under 18. Some are even above average relative to adult writing. But, unlike chess, math, or music it takes a long time to write a book so they get less practice. On top of that books take a long time to write so they need to be good at a young age simply to finish by 18. On the other had there is some IMO great poetry written by kids.
- eachro 9y ago
  Child prodigies are rare by definition though. Whether or not you've heard of them, I think, is more a function of what media chooses to shine a spotlight on. On the top of my head I'd probably say Chistopher Paolini(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini) qualifies as a child prodigy author - his first book, Eragon, was published when he was 19. Granted, it was his parent publishing company, but it still became a best seller. But your broader point: "These fields tend to draw upon a whole life's worth of experience -- something that children obviously lack and can't make up for through "winning the genetic lottery"." Yea, I'd agree with that.
chipfunk 9y ago
This is incorrect in many cases. The relative importance of innate potential vs focused practice differs wildly based on the activity. Certain activities (powerlifting, sprinting, competitive programming, singing) depend very heavily on genetic abilities such as IQ, muscular strength, etc. Other activities (assembling wooden ships and putting them in bottles, sailing, choreographed dances, becoming an expert on world history) depend more on improving muscle memory or on learning specific skills/strategies/techniques that don't simply appear without practice. Most skills are somewhere between the two extremes. If success relative to your peers is the goal, the former type of skill should only be pursued by those with some degree of pre-existing talent, whereas the latter type of skill provides opportunities for talentless but hard-working individuals to outshine their lazier peers.
- munchbunny 9y ago
  On the topic of talent-heavy activities though: I think it's important to point out that you should only consider talent when you are trying to make a living doing it, because competition is high and thus you're likely going to get out-competed by people who have innate advantages. But if you're just doing it for fun and not to earn a living, you can actually get quite good at any of them with focused training. You might not get professional level good, but you can become objectively quite skilled.
WalterBright 9y ago
There isn't that much genetic variation. Talent amounts to a few percent, the rest is hard work. You could be last place at the Olympics, and will trivially beat anybody with talent but no training. You could be 7 foot with excellent hand-eye coordination, but with no training in basketball, a 5 foot schlub with good training will easily destroy you.
WalterBright 9y ago
On the other hand, most everyone is good at something. It pays to find out what you're good at, and make a career in that direction. Me, I have no physical talents whatsoever. But I happen to have the inclination and ability to program, so that makes sense for me to do that rather than, say, boxing.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
There will always be geniuses, capable of feats far beyond what you could ever accomplish. As a mathematician, I'm only too aware of this. That doesn't mean that you will not have something worth contributing. The difficult thing is to find out what that is of course!

felipemnoa 9y ago

A You that trains will be better than a You that does not train.

eachro 9y ago
This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.
- projektir 9y ago
  We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.
  - eachro 9y ago
    "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.
    - projektir 9y ago
      > What things are you talking about? What is at stake? "Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state) I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into moralism. Like this example here: > the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies You're saying this as if these things are not related. If people repeatedly get the message that the only thing stopping them from being a great mathematician is hard work, that message better be correct, or there will be social consequences. It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. > this kind of thinking is unproductive The truth is never unproductive.

noahc 9y ago

Do you really believe this? Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?

mooseburger 9y ago
Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1... "Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- moufestaphio 9y ago
  Pretty bad example. Dude was a semi-retired PROFESSIONAL tennis player. Who had been ranked as high as 38th in the world. He obviously had a fuck ton of training, was just 'retired' when he played the game.
  - mannykannot 9y ago

twoquestions 9y ago

I can't think of an instance where this is true for normal people. I can see an untrained 250lb person beating a 100lb one-armed boxer, but outside such extreme disparities, training >> innate ability, at least in my experience.

Anderkent 9y ago
Most mental jobs are like this? Programming is notoriously difficult for people without the right mindset, and the right mindset is difficult to teach. During my degree I've met many people who've worked really hard, much harder than I did, and some of them quite smart - but just couldn't learn to write good code. They've eventually switched degrees or dropped out, because there's only so long you can try something for when you obviously aren't achieving much.
saulrh 9y ago
> for normal people Sure is a good No True Scotsman you've got there. And I'm not even sure you'd be right ignoring that; recall that sports like boxing and MMA separate people into weight classes that are ten pounds wide. In other words, those sports think that, within the bounds of "professional", there is no amount of innate ability or training that can balance out a 25-pound difference in weight. But even if you were right about reachable levels of ability, you fail to realize that the problem is less about the maximum reachable level and more about the ease of reaching a competitive level. Sure, most people can train up to run a marathon. But some people will take a year to do that and some people will take three month. And that kind of difference is crippling. Trying to get a degree in a one-year skill will cost you more in time and stress than trying to get a degree in a one-month skill, so much more that you may be out-competed and fail or simply collapse under the increased strain. Furthermore, when looking at Real Life, it's not just about whether you can Get Good at a single skill that you can't choose. It's about how good you can be overall. It's impressive when a 100lb one-armed boxer beats an untrained 250lb person through pure skill because it indicates just how much time that boxer must have spent training to do that. But do we think that the "untrained person" sat on their ass that whole time? No. They spent that time playing chess. And as a result, while the boxer trains their ass off and has a fantastic day and somehow, against all odds, manages to beat the untrained person in a boxing ring... if they squared off across a chessboard the "untrained person" would casually style all over the boxer in between rounds of candy crush. So yes. Training >>> innate skill, more so for some skills than others. But don't let that make you think that genetics are fair.

losteric 9y ago

Does that matter? Do you take pride in what you've accomplished, or is the focus on who's better? I'll never "catch up" to Musk, but I'm better than most people simply by trying my own business ideas.

rankam 9y ago
I don't know, doesn't the outcome matter? Trying is admirable, but if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?
- nikki93 9y ago
  no because what you’ve learned by trying, you can tell other people. causality is complex, and it’s path-dependent not event-dependent.
  - rankam 9y ago
    Sure, but this implies that you don't learn things while "not trying". Of course you learn things while "not trying", albeit different things.
- rizzom5000 9y ago
  > at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no? I think it depends on how you fail though. If you learn something from the experience, your odds of succeeding on the next try increase. Many goals are achieved through a succession of failures.
  - rankam 9y ago
    I agree with your statement - my point is that there seems to be this prevailing idea that you can't learn unless you try to build something by yourself which ignores reality. Sure, if you try to start a business/project/idea you're going to learn a lot along the way, but if you don't strike out on your own you're still going to have experiences and learn.
- 9y ago

booleandilemma 9y ago

I agree that genetics is an important foundation, but we shouldn’t let it overshadow the hours of training professional athletes go through and the discipline they have. Good genes or not, it still takes a lot of effort to get to where they are.

k__ 9y ago

Getting in shape is accomplishable for almost everyone. It's just not done in the same way for everyone...

munchbunny 9y ago

Some people will just start a standard deviation above others, but when it comes to talents or traits you build careers on, those people are rare. I think the important point is that most people can move themselves up a standard deviation or more with dedicated practice, even in areas like creativity. While they might not become geniuses, they can certainly develop quite a respectable level of talent.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do." This is clearer in some fields than others -- particularly in fields where there are child prodigies, like in chess, music, or mathematics. In other fields, child prodigies are rare or perhaps even non-existent. There are, to my knowledge, no child prodigies who've written brilliant novels, or earned the Nobel Prize for Literature (as flawed a measure of talent as it is). There are no children who've composed poems which are considered to be among the greatest in the world. These fields tend to draw upon a whole life's worth of experience -- something that children obviously lack and can't make up for through "winning the genetic lottery".

Retric 9y ago
Few books are written by kids which confuses the issue. If only one in 100,000 books is great and prodigies have written less than 100,000 books then you should not expect any great books. On the other hand plenty of great books have been written by people in their 20's which is a long way from a full life.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  So why aren't they writing books? They're making music, playing chess, and doing math -- often at much higher levels than many adults. Why not books?
  - Retric 9y ago
    There are plenty of books written by people under 18. Some are even above average relative to adult writing. But, unlike chess, math, or music it takes a long time to write a book so they get less practice. On top of that books take a long time to write so they need to be good at a young age simply to finish by 18. On the other had there is some IMO great poetry written by kids.
eachro 9y ago
Child prodigies are rare by definition though. Whether or not you've heard of them, I think, is more a function of what media chooses to shine a spotlight on. On the top of my head I'd probably say Chistopher Paolini(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini) qualifies as a child prodigy author - his first book, Eragon, was published when he was 19. Granted, it was his parent publishing company, but it still became a best seller. But your broader point: "These fields tend to draw upon a whole life's worth of experience -- something that children obviously lack and can't make up for through "winning the genetic lottery"." Yea, I'd agree with that.

chipfunk 9y ago

This is incorrect in many cases. The relative importance of innate potential vs focused practice differs wildly based on the activity. Certain activities (powerlifting, sprinting, competitive programming, singing) depend very heavily on genetic abilities such as IQ, muscular strength, etc. Other activities (assembling wooden ships and putting them in bottles, sailing, choreographed dances, becoming an expert on world history) depend more on improving muscle memory or on learning specific skills/strategies/techniques that don't simply appear without practice. Most skills are somewhere between the two extremes. If success relative to your peers is the goal, the former type of skill should only be pursued by those with some degree of pre-existing talent, whereas the latter type of skill provides opportunities for talentless but hard-working individuals to outshine their lazier peers.

munchbunny 9y ago
On the topic of talent-heavy activities though: I think it's important to point out that you should only consider talent when you are trying to make a living doing it, because competition is high and thus you're likely going to get out-competed by people who have innate advantages. But if you're just doing it for fun and not to earn a living, you can actually get quite good at any of them with focused training. You might not get professional level good, but you can become objectively quite skilled.

WalterBright 9y ago

There isn't that much genetic variation. Talent amounts to a few percent, the rest is hard work. You could be last place at the Olympics, and will trivially beat anybody with talent but no training. You could be 7 foot with excellent hand-eye coordination, but with no training in basketball, a 5 foot schlub with good training will easily destroy you.

WalterBright 9y ago

On the other hand, most everyone is good at something. It pays to find out what you're good at, and make a career in that direction. Me, I have no physical talents whatsoever. But I happen to have the inclination and ability to program, so that makes sense for me to do that rather than, say, boxing.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

There will always be geniuses, capable of feats far beyond what you could ever accomplish. As a mathematician, I'm only too aware of this. That doesn't mean that you will not have something worth contributing. The difficult thing is to find out what that is of course!