3 ms·
The sports analogy is misleading. If you want to make it to the top in sports, you need the talent, which in this case, means the right genes. Usain Bolt will
by danielh 18y ago
The sports analogy is misleading.
If you want to make it to the top in sports, you need the talent, which in this case, means the right genes.
Usain Bolt will never beat Haile Gebrselassie in a marathon, no matter how much training (or doping), and vice versa.
- Goronmon 18y agoI think it's much easier to discuss "talent" if you ignore physical attributes. Not just because it avoids using the word "talent" too broadly, but because physical attributes only apply in a very limited number of professions.
- xiaoma 18y agoLike the rest of the body, the brain exists in the physical world. All "talent" is based upon physical attributes.
- Goronmon 18y agoI was using the dichotomy between physical and mental in this context. Perhaps I didn't make that clear but it seems you are just being difficult for the sake of...well...being difficult. Was my point really that difficult to understand? I am asking honestly, not to be condescending.
- xiaoma 18y agoI believe it's a false dichotomy in this context. Our bodies and brains are both shaped by our genetics as well as our experiences. Small differences in heredity can have drastic effects on mental limits. Those limits may not be as easy to see as height is, but they are real, nonetheless.
- Goronmon 18y agoIf those limitations are hard to measure, nearly impossible to judge at a glance, and are not guaranteed to even be present in an individual, how do you have a discussion about their effects on a person's success? Either way, my point was that I felt you should ignore physical attributes not related to mental abilities when discussing talent. I think using them as examples of "talents" making a difference just confuses the issue.
- crosscompile 18y agoYou underestimate steroids.