4 ms·

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 di

• 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
      Given the punishing training regimen the Williams sisters follow, it is good evidence of biological limits on the boost training can give in tennis. I doubt it has much relevance for creativity.
      • moufestaphio 9y ago
        I think it's pretty well accepted that Men better at physical activities almost across the board. I don't think that's what the original point was about though. The original question was asking for an example of a "genetically talented that they didn’t train" losing to someone who was a "pro" and this is clearly not an example of it. That said, I'm not trying to make the argument that there aren't 'genetic' limits.
        • mannykannot 9y ago
          The original question, however, was a loaded one in the context it was asked, in that the person asking the question was using it to dispute the claim that individuals have biological limits that training cannot surmount. Even if this answer does not fully satisfy the excessively stringent terms of the question, it still works as a counterexample to the questioner's position.
          • noahc 9y ago
            Of course there are biological limits that training can’t surmount. My point, more broadly, is that the idea that, “I can’t do that....genetics!” is misplaced defeatism.
            • mannykannot 9y ago
              For a majority of aspiring athletes, it is probably better for them to accept sooner rather than later that they cannot get to the first rank - and most of them do. Unrealistic expectations in either direction do not help (though a bias to optimism is probably a good thing.) But, as I suggested earlier, I don't think the issue of athletic performance has much to say about creativity, which is the topic of this article. Indubitable's answer of Ramanujan is a much more relevant reply to your question, but where does that leave us? His example does not give us a reason to give up on creativity, which goes to show that the question doesn't address the issue.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• Anderkent 9y ago
  Why compare with semi-professionals? Being a semi-professional already suggests a certain degree of talent. You should be comparing someone really talented but having no interest at X with someone who is very interested in X and does it regularly, but has no relevant talent and as such it's at best a hobby they are bad at.
  • noahc 9y ago
    I agree, I was trying to be generous.
• mooseburger 9y ago
  One sees this with some frequency in art. Consider Haruki Murakami: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruki_Murakami#Writing_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruki_Murakami#Writing_career "Murakami began to write fiction when he was 29.[19] "Before that", he said, "I didn't write anything. I was just one of those ordinary people. I was running a jazz club, and I didn't create anything at all."[20] He was inspired to write his first novel, Hear the Wind Sing (1979), while watching a baseball game."
• indubitable 9y ago
  The problem with this is that people like this then tend to train and go on to do phenomenally well with extreme ease. In the physical domain, Mike Tyson is a good example. He was 'discovered' by a detention counselor when he was 13. 2 years later he would be the junior olympic world champion for two years in a row. Then he went professional and won his first 19 fights by knockout, 12 in the first round. He then went around and won every world championship belt there was - getting his first world championship title 8 months before he was old enough to legally buy a beer. For the mental realm you have people like Srinivasa Ramanujan [1]. He had next to no formal training in mathematics yet would contribute immensely to a wide array of mathematical fields before the end of his brief life, dying at 32.
  • rifung 9y ago
    Indeed Mike Tyson is probably a very poor example of this because even though he is no doubt immensely talented, he also was not only trained by but adopted by Cus D'amato, a very famous boxing coach who dedicated those final years of his life to making sure Tyson became a world champion.
• guskel 9y ago
  Modeling
• almost_usual 9y ago
  Everything that makes you is genetics. Desire to train is genetics. There isn’t a “genetics only helps so much” argument.