3 ms·

Coincidentally, a point of view against the supposed benefits of early and narrow specialisation: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jul/12/generali

Coincidentally, a point of view against the supposed benefits of early and narrow specialisation: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jul/12/generalise-dont-specialise-why-focusing-too-narrowly-is-bad-for-us https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jul/12/general...

Balgair 7y ago
I'm going through Epstein's book now and with basketball and other team sports, I feel that he is correct. The late bloomers stand a better chance than the early specalizers. Epstein makes the point that the world need both types of people, but that early specalizers are a little too 'en vogue' right now. He points out that in games like golf and chess, where the objectives and next steps are very clear and where the information in the activity is minimally hidden, being an early specalizer is a good thing to bet on. In other games and sports like tennis and poker, where the objectives and next steps are not clear and where information is hidden and not accessible, then going through a sampling period and then deciding is a better method. Obviously the world is mix of those things among many others. In basketball, I'd argue that the sport is not clear and the information is hidden. Practicing shots is essential, but the inter-person play and the mental gamesmenship is a feature of the sport. It's the bluffing, the flopping, the timming, the brinksmanship that make elite basketball a great sport to watch. Information about specific plays is hidden, the next move to make is about juking and fooling people, and the team aspect makes coordinating many high level players nearly impossible. As such, players that have a lot of other experience besides just shooting field goals really well, will do better. You still have to be very good at basketball, of course. But trying out a few sports, cross-training not just the body but also the mind, and developing other neural pathways is essential for elite players.

Balgair 7y ago

I'm going through Epstein's book now and with basketball and other team sports, I feel that he is correct. The late bloomers stand a better chance than the early specalizers. Epstein makes the point that the world need both types of people, but that early specalizers are a little too 'en vogue' right now. He points out that in games like golf and chess, where the objectives and next steps are very clear and where the information in the activity is minimally hidden, being an early specalizer is a good thing to bet on. In other games and sports like tennis and poker, where the objectives and next steps are not clear and where information is hidden and not accessible, then going through a sampling period and then deciding is a better method. Obviously the world is mix of those things among many others. In basketball, I'd argue that the sport is not clear and the information is hidden. Practicing shots is essential, but the inter-person play and the mental gamesmenship is a feature of the sport. It's the bluffing, the flopping, the timming, the brinksmanship that make elite basketball a great sport to watch. Information about specific plays is hidden, the next move to make is about juking and fooling people, and the team aspect makes coordinating many high level players nearly impossible. As such, players that have a lot of other experience besides just shooting field goals really well, will do better. You still have to be very good at basketball, of course. But trying out a few sports, cross-training not just the body but also the mind, and developing other neural pathways is essential for elite players.