3 ms·

This analysis doesn't really make sense. You extend your limits due to working at them. This goes for all activities, not just physical sports. Athletes train a

This analysis doesn't really make sense. You extend your limits due to working at them. This goes for all activities, not just physical sports. Athletes train at their limits every day, actually they train past their limits with the use of technology like oxygen masks.

zoogeny 3y ago
I think your mistake is by considering a single person and not considering the comparison between two individuals. Consider two athletes that can both achieve some specific result, e.g. run a quarter mile in some equal fixed time. The first athlete does so with almost no effort and with very little recovery time while the second athlete does so with clear strain, and significant exhaustion after the test. My contention is that a coach who is forced to choose one of those athletes for advanced training (solely on the information I provided above) may favor the athlete that achieved the equal result with less effort. He can't differentiate them on performance (they got equal time after all) so he will use their perceived effort as a guide. It may not be an accurate decision, but I am suggesting that the coach may reason that the athlete who appears less exhausted could be pushed harder through advanced coaching. It may be assumed (again, incorrectly but somewhat reasonably) that by pushing the first athlete to the same level of exhaustion as experienced by the second athlete, their performance (e.g. the time to finish a quarter mile) may be improved more drastically than pushing the second athlete. This is what I mean when I say "the first athlete appears to have more room to grow". Remember, the article isn't about which athlete can actually improve more, the article is about how we reward and judge other people based on their effort. I'm suggesting we are making a prediction about possible future capabilities in a similar way as my fictional coach.
- waboremo 3y ago
  In both experiments highlighted in the article, they're both given equal status but one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart or balancing in play and makes sense why people would lean that direction. It's like being offered two shirts, but one of them comes with a candy. Which is why your hypothetical and the above theory doesn't make much sense. In your case, the coach would be told that one of them is naturally gifted, leading to bias. You're theorizing that visual effort is the reason, but the article goes into some ideas as to why this bias exists (ie: the idea of naturalness being better, religious beliefs, status effects, etc) and visual effort is not one of them. Again, all else is equal, but one side is explicitly told to be naturally talented.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    A careful reading of the source article states: > With each track, the participants were given a short biographical text that either emphasised the natural talent of the performer, or the hard work that had helped them to develop their art. You said: > one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart Which is incorrect. It is important to clearly and accurately read the source material to avoid your own bias. We cannot know, based on the article, which statements (the emphasis on the natural talent or the hard work that helped them develop their art) were the primary cause of the findings. You can either assume or you can create a new experiment that tries to distinguish between them. I can't say that I am correct, but to suggest my analysis "doesn't make much sense" is both inaccurate and frankly rude.

zoogeny 3y ago

I think your mistake is by considering a single person and not considering the comparison between two individuals. Consider two athletes that can both achieve some specific result, e.g. run a quarter mile in some equal fixed time. The first athlete does so with almost no effort and with very little recovery time while the second athlete does so with clear strain, and significant exhaustion after the test. My contention is that a coach who is forced to choose one of those athletes for advanced training (solely on the information I provided above) may favor the athlete that achieved the equal result with less effort. He can't differentiate them on performance (they got equal time after all) so he will use their perceived effort as a guide. It may not be an accurate decision, but I am suggesting that the coach may reason that the athlete who appears less exhausted could be pushed harder through advanced coaching. It may be assumed (again, incorrectly but somewhat reasonably) that by pushing the first athlete to the same level of exhaustion as experienced by the second athlete, their performance (e.g. the time to finish a quarter mile) may be improved more drastically than pushing the second athlete. This is what I mean when I say "the first athlete appears to have more room to grow". Remember, the article isn't about which athlete can actually improve more, the article is about how we reward and judge other people based on their effort. I'm suggesting we are making a prediction about possible future capabilities in a similar way as my fictional coach.

waboremo 3y ago
In both experiments highlighted in the article, they're both given equal status but one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart or balancing in play and makes sense why people would lean that direction. It's like being offered two shirts, but one of them comes with a candy. Which is why your hypothetical and the above theory doesn't make much sense. In your case, the coach would be told that one of them is naturally gifted, leading to bias. You're theorizing that visual effort is the reason, but the article goes into some ideas as to why this bias exists (ie: the idea of naturalness being better, religious beliefs, status effects, etc) and visual effort is not one of them. Again, all else is equal, but one side is explicitly told to be naturally talented.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  A careful reading of the source article states: > With each track, the participants were given a short biographical text that either emphasised the natural talent of the performer, or the hard work that had helped them to develop their art. You said: > one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart Which is incorrect. It is important to clearly and accurately read the source material to avoid your own bias. We cannot know, based on the article, which statements (the emphasis on the natural talent or the hard work that helped them develop their art) were the primary cause of the findings. You can either assume or you can create a new experiment that tries to distinguish between them. I can't say that I am correct, but to suggest my analysis "doesn't make much sense" is both inaccurate and frankly rude.