5 ms·
> Athletes who go on to become elite usually have a “sampling period.” They try a variety of sports, gain a breadth of general skills, learn about their own abi
by jaden 7y ago
> Athletes who go on to become elite usually have a “sampling period.” They try a variety of sports, gain a breadth of general skills, learn about their own abilities and proclivities, and delay specializing until later than their peers who plateau at lower levels.
There's so much for kids to experience as they grow up, it's a shame when a child is made to specialize in a single endeavor before they've had a chance to try other activities.
- hirundo 7y agoA kid who goes deep on a particular skill learns a great lesson of her own powers of discipline and mastery. That lesson applies to whatever other skills she pursues in life, earning herself a high opinion of her own agency that colors most important life choices.
- stcredzero 7y agoI think the ideal is for someone to have a very deep knowledge of two different fields, or areas of interest, while also having broad general knowledge. This gives people an idea both of how deep human knowledge runs, and how wide. With only one area of interest, some people might come away with the idea that one area is somehow unique and different. With two, there's more reason to conclude that other areas are just as deep.
- Benjammer 7y agoYou can also try to counter your bias by always remembering the adage: "Specialists will tend to underestimate how well a Generalist can specialize, when they choose to specialize. Generalists will tend to underestimate how deep any given specialty goes."
- stcredzero 7y agoI'll have to remember that one. In a way, I'm advocating for everyone to be at least two kinds of specialist and generalist at the same time.
- TheBeardKing 7y agoNot necessarily. My niece is an excellent gymnast and loves it, and it's the only sport she's ever done. I imagine when you're one of the best at your activity you tend to enjoy it more.
- stcredzero 7y agoDon't have to be the absolute best. Just have to be good enough to impress yourself. (Provided one has a good perspective on what good really is.)
- Konnstann 7y agoProbability dictates that there are people who find their passion with limited guesswork, and hopefully your niece is one of them. If a major part of enjoyment of a sport is how good you are relative to your peers, however, that is unlikely to last. AFAIK gymnastics has a very short timeframe for most women to be competitive as well, exacerbating that fact.
- TheBeardKing 7y agoOnly recognizing your own talents is more than random probability, and can be achieved at an early age for the truly talented. It's not hard to imagine that those who are legitimately talented be it in art, athletics, or academia, take pleasure in their activities not only for the competition, but in witnessing and experiencing the progression of their skill.
- anthuman 7y agoSure. But then we won't have mozart or lebron james or turing or messi or most of the olympic athletes, etc. It's a question of breadth vs depth. Specialization vs generalization. I suppose most kids should be given a generalized "education". But if a kid is precocious or talented, then specialization makes sense. Whatever happens, everyone lives with the "what if" or questions about the road not taken.
- krisroadruck 7y agoCall me crazy, but as a society, what do we lose if our best athletes are less good than the ones we have now? This argument maybe makes sense in STEM fields but to me at least it falls flat on its face if the loss is some number of seconds off the fastest mile ran, or cm's off the highest vertical leap.
- anthuman 7y agoIt depends on whether you think non-STEM endeavors like athletic performance or art enriches society. Does michael jordan dunking from the free throw line enrich society? Does mozart's music enrich society? Did Bolt or Phelps breaking records at the olympics affect society or humanity? I'd say yes. Beyond the inspirational and the aspirational, it also pushed humans limits further. Does art ( physical, musical, literary, etc ) matter? I'd say it matters, maybe even more than "STEM". But that's an open-ended philosophical discussion. Athletic endeavors also help advance science as well. There is a science of athletics/athleticism. Striving for athletic excellence could drive genetic, biological and technological advancement and vice versa.
- krisroadruck 7y agoI think you missed the nuance of my point. I wasn't saying we should get rid of sports or athleticism or creative en devours that result in entertainment value or inspire emotion. I was saying that the accomplishments in those fields are relative. If Michael Jordan had instead dunked from a foot closer, but that was still better than had been previously seen, would the world have derived less enjoyment? If Phelps or Bolt had broken slightly less impressive records than they had broken would that really matter at all? I'd argue that since the history of humanity has been breaking those records and moving the line forwards again and again and the people where entertained long before the folks you mentioned were born, the answer is pretty obviously "not really". But a medical breakthrough that impacts millions of lives, not abstractly but in measurable improvements to health and longevity? It's a whole different kind of thing. Reducing the cost of clean energy and pushing back the grasp of climate change? Stuff like that vs an impressive slam dunk and I just don't see why it's vitally important to ever force-feed a child a sport in the hopes that they'll break that kind of record.