5 ms·

People always seem to want to pretend it isn't a factor, but natural talent also matters, for both basketball and software engineering. In basketball, it is qu

People always seem to want to pretend it isn't a factor, but natural talent also matters, for both basketball and software engineering. In basketball, it is quite easy to prove that some people are simply unable to ever be a great basketball player; there has never been an NBA player shorter than 5'3, only 25 shorter than 6'0, and only 10 under 5'10. Are you really telling me NO ONE shorter than 5'3 ever decided the trade offs were worth it? No, at some point, it doesn't matter how hard you work or whether or not you have any outside issues; some people simply don't have the genetic attributes needed to be great. Now, everyone can get better, but we all have some limit to our abilities that we approach but don't cross as we work harder and practice. Not everyone who isn't great should feel like it is because they didn't choose to be great, some people (most of us, probably) just aren't capable of being that great. Of course, most of us aren't that close to our limits, and it is impossible to know what those limits are.... but they are there nonetheless.

maccard 6y ago
> In basketball, it is quite easy to prove that some people are simply unable to ever be a great basketball player; there has never been an NBA player shorter than 5'3, only 25 shorter than 6'0, and only 10 under 5'10. Are you really telling me NO ONE shorter than 5'3 ever decided the trade offs were worth it? Anecdotal, I'm 6'1. At a middle school age, I was _hounded_ into playing basketball (until they realised I had no talent whatsoever, or any inkling that I wanted to attempt to improve that). There's definitely a selection bias in who gets started playing basketball in the first place. Back on topic, > some people simply don't have the genetic attributes needed to be great. I think this is a massive stretch. I think it's fair to say that some people don't have the attributes to be in the top 0.01% of the their game (in baskebtall, there's a few hundred(?) players in the NBA - that's the equivalent of the John Carmack/Peter Norvig types that have come up here), but is there any proof whatsoever of any form that says that an "average-to-poor" engineer can't become a "great" engineer - (in basketball terms, going from the person who can't dribble to the person who absolutely dominates your after-work league consistently)
- oblio 6y ago
  > Anecdotal, I'm 6'1. At a middle school age, I was _hounded_ into playing basketball (until they realised I had no talent whatsoever, or any inkling that I wanted to attempt to improve that). There's definitely a selection bias in who gets started playing basketball in the first place. This has had a bigger impact than you'd imagine :-) For example quite a few tall football players have been nudged when they were kids to play basketball. But luckily some more open minded coaches let them play and found out that they were actually good. The best example is Jan Koller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koller 2.02 (6'8), so definitely towering above most other people :-) But the things is, genes do matter at a certain level. I really think you can't be an NBA player if you're 1.50 (I think that would be about 4'8). No matter how fast or resilient you are. You'll just be outmuscled, dunking will probably be almost physically impossible.
  - maccard 6y ago
    > genes do matter at a certain level. And the only example that has been given is that someone who is legally considered disabled cannot compete in the top 0.01% of professional sports. I had a bit of a search, and Jahmani Swanson [0] is 4'5, and would absolutely wreck pretty much every single non-NBA basketball player you would ever meet in your life (I am aware that the team are an exhibitionist team, and not an NBA team). I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples of people who won't be able to compete at the top 0.01% of the activity in question, but are unquestionably "great". [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARERrH52BGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARERrH52BGo
    - oblio 6y ago
      Someone 1m 50 is considered disabled? Why? How?
      - maccard 6y ago
        MayoClinic [0] defines dwarfism as under 4'10. I actually responded to the 4'8 rather than the 1.5m (I just missed it in my reply, sorry!) [0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dwarfism/symptoms-causes/syc-20371969 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dwarfism/symp...
red_admiral 6y ago
If we're bringing up basketball as a comparison for development skills - or intelligence in general - then Scott Alexander has written about this too: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/01/talents-part-2-attitude-vs-altitude/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/01/talents-part-2-attitud... His take is that someone short may never make it to the NBA, but that shouldn't mean we discourage them from ever throwing a ball at a hoop.
bluedino 6y ago
>> In basketball, it is quite easy to prove that some people are simply unable to ever be a great basketball player There's a simple cure for this: Height classes You can still be a GREAT basketball player if you were only 5 foot 6 inches tall. Is the best 5'-6" basketball player in the world, not great? They just can't compete against the physically taller players. What if you made a league exclusively for players in between 5 and 6 feet tall? Floyd Mayweather is a great boxer. But if there weren't weight classes in boxing, and you put him in the ring with some journeyman heavyweight, he'd lose. He's just too small to win. It's the same thing.

maccard 6y ago

> In basketball, it is quite easy to prove that some people are simply unable to ever be a great basketball player; there has never been an NBA player shorter than 5'3, only 25 shorter than 6'0, and only 10 under 5'10. Are you really telling me NO ONE shorter than 5'3 ever decided the trade offs were worth it? Anecdotal, I'm 6'1. At a middle school age, I was _hounded_ into playing basketball (until they realised I had no talent whatsoever, or any inkling that I wanted to attempt to improve that). There's definitely a selection bias in who gets started playing basketball in the first place. Back on topic, > some people simply don't have the genetic attributes needed to be great. I think this is a massive stretch. I think it's fair to say that some people don't have the attributes to be in the top 0.01% of the their game (in baskebtall, there's a few hundred(?) players in the NBA - that's the equivalent of the John Carmack/Peter Norvig types that have come up here), but is there any proof whatsoever of any form that says that an "average-to-poor" engineer can't become a "great" engineer - (in basketball terms, going from the person who can't dribble to the person who absolutely dominates your after-work league consistently)

oblio 6y ago
> Anecdotal, I'm 6'1. At a middle school age, I was _hounded_ into playing basketball (until they realised I had no talent whatsoever, or any inkling that I wanted to attempt to improve that). There's definitely a selection bias in who gets started playing basketball in the first place. This has had a bigger impact than you'd imagine :-) For example quite a few tall football players have been nudged when they were kids to play basketball. But luckily some more open minded coaches let them play and found out that they were actually good. The best example is Jan Koller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koller 2.02 (6'8), so definitely towering above most other people :-) But the things is, genes do matter at a certain level. I really think you can't be an NBA player if you're 1.50 (I think that would be about 4'8). No matter how fast or resilient you are. You'll just be outmuscled, dunking will probably be almost physically impossible.
- maccard 6y ago
  > genes do matter at a certain level. And the only example that has been given is that someone who is legally considered disabled cannot compete in the top 0.01% of professional sports. I had a bit of a search, and Jahmani Swanson [0] is 4'5, and would absolutely wreck pretty much every single non-NBA basketball player you would ever meet in your life (I am aware that the team are an exhibitionist team, and not an NBA team). I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples of people who won't be able to compete at the top 0.01% of the activity in question, but are unquestionably "great". [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARERrH52BGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARERrH52BGo
  - oblio 6y ago
    Someone 1m 50 is considered disabled? Why? How?
    - maccard 6y ago
      MayoClinic [0] defines dwarfism as under 4'10. I actually responded to the 4'8 rather than the 1.5m (I just missed it in my reply, sorry!) [0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dwarfism/symptoms-causes/syc-20371969 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dwarfism/symp...

red_admiral 6y ago

If we're bringing up basketball as a comparison for development skills - or intelligence in general - then Scott Alexander has written about this too: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/01/talents-part-2-attitude-vs-altitude/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/01/talents-part-2-attitud... His take is that someone short may never make it to the NBA, but that shouldn't mean we discourage them from ever throwing a ball at a hoop.

bluedino 6y ago

>> In basketball, it is quite easy to prove that some people are simply unable to ever be a great basketball player There's a simple cure for this: Height classes You can still be a GREAT basketball player if you were only 5 foot 6 inches tall. Is the best 5'-6" basketball player in the world, not great? They just can't compete against the physically taller players. What if you made a league exclusively for players in between 5 and 6 feet tall? Floyd Mayweather is a great boxer. But if there weren't weight classes in boxing, and you put him in the ring with some journeyman heavyweight, he'd lose. He's just too small to win. It's the same thing.