4 ms·

An emotional reaction to this kind of realism is understandable considering how much people want to believe they can be be great at anything. But the truth is

by xiaoma 14y ago

An emotional reaction to this kind of realism is understandable considering how much people want to believe they can be be great at anything. But the truth is that innate differences matter not just in athletics, but in any endeavor. Even the famous Polgar sisters you mention both trailed men who had later starts and less formal early training for their entire careers. UK marathoner Paula Radcliffe's career is similar in many respects. In general, the "purer" an endeavor is the more decisive innate differences are. By this I mean that innate differences will matter more for runners than for basketball players, more for speed skaters than hockey players, more for mathematicians than for hedge fund quants, etc... But there is a great deal of evidence that innate differences create uncrossable chasms in skills far outside of athletics. Music: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm Motor Skills: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm IQ & Cortical Thickening: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/science/30brain.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/science/30brain.html?_r=1 Language: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050517063228.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050517063228.ht... Facial recognition: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/face-recognition/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/face-recognition/ None of this means that willpower doesn't matter. Of course it does. However, at least accepting the reality that we don't all have the exact same potential at every pursuit can be beneficial. For one thing, it's signal not to heavily invest in a tournament-style career, such as modelling or concert violin playing, unless you have a clear aptitude. Even for more forgiving careers, where merely being competent is enough to make a good living, it's rational to choose a career that aligns with your natural talents. Why put X amount of effort to be in the 70th percentile of some field when the same amount of effort would make you 90th percentile in another comparably in-demand field? Most people are happier doing what they're good at.

NathanRice 14y ago
I agree that world champion level aspirations are not realistic for everyone. This doesn't mean the people who do not have innate talent are leagues below world champions though. In my observations, talent causes an athlete to become proficient faster, and to end up being very slightly better than untalented people who work very hard. Of course, at the level of world champions, very slightly better is the difference between first place and middle of the pack.
- xiaoma 14y ago
  The problem is that in tournament-style professions, their prospects are leagues below that of the world champions. One heart breaking example I witnessed personally was a family member. He wanted more than anything to be a classical musician. From the age of four, he was taught by the same teacher who trained a very successful NY Philharmonic pianist (opera coach). He practiced many hours a day all through his school years and earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees in clarinet performance. By any objective measure he was a very good clarinetist. But he wasn't good enough to make a real living at it. Unlike his mother, who had perfect pitch by the end of grade school, he never developed it. He saw more than one talented peer surpass him in despite his extreme work ethic. In the end, after putting over 25 years of his life and his passion into it, he finally gave up on his dream and became a programmer. Unlike his experiences in music, he very quickly rose to the top of development groups and it was he who was the one surpassing others who had been working at it longer and harder. I often wonder what he could have done if he'd given up his initial dream after just 10 years instead of 25.

by xiaoma 14y ago

NathanRice 14y ago

I agree that world champion level aspirations are not realistic for everyone. This doesn't mean the people who do not have innate talent are leagues below world champions though. In my observations, talent causes an athlete to become proficient faster, and to end up being very slightly better than untalented people who work very hard. Of course, at the level of world champions, very slightly better is the difference between first place and middle of the pack.

xiaoma 14y ago
The problem is that in tournament-style professions, their prospects are leagues below that of the world champions. One heart breaking example I witnessed personally was a family member. He wanted more than anything to be a classical musician. From the age of four, he was taught by the same teacher who trained a very successful NY Philharmonic pianist (opera coach). He practiced many hours a day all through his school years and earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees in clarinet performance. By any objective measure he was a very good clarinetist. But he wasn't good enough to make a real living at it. Unlike his mother, who had perfect pitch by the end of grade school, he never developed it. He saw more than one talented peer surpass him in despite his extreme work ethic. In the end, after putting over 25 years of his life and his passion into it, he finally gave up on his dream and became a programmer. Unlike his experiences in music, he very quickly rose to the top of development groups and it was he who was the one surpassing others who had been working at it longer and harder. I often wonder what he could have done if he'd given up his initial dream after just 10 years instead of 25.