4 ms·

Matthew Syed's thesis is fundamentally challenged by reality. Certain activities/sports have a clear bias towards certain body types (as a reductive but clear

by Marazan 12y ago

Matthew Syed's thesis is fundamentally challenged by reality. Certain activities/sports have a clear bias towards certain body types (as a reductive but clear example who would you favour to get an item off a high shelf unaided, the 6 foot 4 inch tall person or the 5 foot 6 inch person?). It is true that training dominates 'talent'/'genetic biomechanics'. But, at similar levels of training some other factor will play a part in determinnig who is best, and at the elite end everyone is basically at the same levels of training so 'talent'/'genetics' will be the deciding factor. There is a reason why each discipline in pro-athletics seems to attract such a homogeneous collection of body shapes and why the people who 'break the mould' are often the most successful at the sport.

lloeki 12y ago
> Certain activities/sports have a clear bias towards certain body types None of which are significant enough to not make someone a master. You don't have to be The Best to be a master at anything, as this is again conflating success with mastery. Being arguably masters at the most remotely similar activity to your example in a tall guys field, [0], [1] and [2] beg to differ, and were also successful on top of it: [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Murphy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Murphy [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb
PM_Tech 12y ago
It's not challenged by reality at all, you are just misunderstanding it (probably because you have not read the book and probably because of my terrible simplification). You keep referring to talent. Which does not exist, has never been proven and has been disproven numerous times by taking sportsman out of their chosen sport but into a new sport requiring similar talent and testing their performance which is always sub-par and hovering around average. The primary example used is table tennis players are famed for having naturally quick reflexes. In every academic study, table tennis players performed no quicker than average in any reflexes test and in some cases performed worse than various random individuals from the street. There are others but you should read the book before discounting a hypothesis. I have read enough to convince me natural talent is a myth; the equivalent of a rain dance is the reason for rain.
- Marazan 12y ago
  This is Syed's stawman, as I state - training is dominant over any innate 'talent' and there isn't anyone seriously engaged in the debate that disagrees with this. Hard work and dedication will make anyone good at anything - no-one disputes this. But Syed wants to apply this to the elite level as well. The elite level is where outliers live on an everyday basis The studies he cites goes the wrong way to draw the conclusion that he wants to draw - it's not about saying table tennis players have super quick reflexes that apply generally it's that some people have super quick reflexes of a type that apply to table tennis. So, whilst Table Tennis players' 'quick reflexes' are clearly trained for the specific situation of Table Tennis rather than being the results of having 'talented' generalist quick reflexes there will be, in the pool of all of humanity, people who's natural bio-mechanic disposition makes them have Table Tennis appropriate quick-reflexes. So if that person applies hard work and dedication to Table Tennis then they will be better than someone without the bio-mechanical advantage who puts in the same hard work and dedication. But if they apply hard work and dedication to another discipline that require fast reflexes they won't be any better as their 'talent' doesn't apply. I follow rugby, rugby is littered with players who were really good but who's body could not take the strain of the training and broke down through the effort. Clearly hard work and dedication alone was not enough for them - they needed a body that could respond favorably to the punishment they were taking.
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    You need to read the book, you disagreeing with the hypothesis with nothing to back up your assertions other than your opinion. Do you think human beings with super quick reflexes exist? That does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I fear we are at an impasse, you have your views and it appears they preclude reading anything that challenges them. Interestingly, I had similar views before reading the cited studies.
    - Marazan 12y ago
      No, I am saying that people have physiological maximums. No matter how hard I train I am not going to become taller (or shorter), no matter how hard I train my knee and ankles will only support a certain mount of force and torque I cannot push past that (without suffering repeated and continual injury) - this is law of the universe stuff. At the level of becoming very good indeed these limits have no effect on becoming better as you do not reach them, but at the elite level, at becoming the best they do. Do you really believe that the guy who came 2nd to 7th in the 2012 Olympic 100m sprint trained an appreciable, measurable, amount less than Usain Bolt - with less dedication, application and rigour? Do you think, say, Gatlin, Gaye and Bailyey trained in a worse environment less conducive to success than Bolt? Are you really saying you can go look Donnie MacFadyen in the face and say he just didn't train with enough dedication?

by Marazan 12y ago

lloeki 12y ago

> Certain activities/sports have a clear bias towards certain body types None of which are significant enough to not make someone a master. You don't have to be The Best to be a master at anything, as this is again conflating success with mastery. Being arguably masters at the most remotely similar activity to your example in a tall guys field, [0], [1] and [2] beg to differ, and were also successful on top of it: [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Murphy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Murphy [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb

PM_Tech 12y ago

It's not challenged by reality at all, you are just misunderstanding it (probably because you have not read the book and probably because of my terrible simplification). You keep referring to talent. Which does not exist, has never been proven and has been disproven numerous times by taking sportsman out of their chosen sport but into a new sport requiring similar talent and testing their performance which is always sub-par and hovering around average. The primary example used is table tennis players are famed for having naturally quick reflexes. In every academic study, table tennis players performed no quicker than average in any reflexes test and in some cases performed worse than various random individuals from the street. There are others but you should read the book before discounting a hypothesis. I have read enough to convince me natural talent is a myth; the equivalent of a rain dance is the reason for rain.

Marazan 12y ago
This is Syed's stawman, as I state - training is dominant over any innate 'talent' and there isn't anyone seriously engaged in the debate that disagrees with this. Hard work and dedication will make anyone good at anything - no-one disputes this. But Syed wants to apply this to the elite level as well. The elite level is where outliers live on an everyday basis The studies he cites goes the wrong way to draw the conclusion that he wants to draw - it's not about saying table tennis players have super quick reflexes that apply generally it's that some people have super quick reflexes of a type that apply to table tennis. So, whilst Table Tennis players' 'quick reflexes' are clearly trained for the specific situation of Table Tennis rather than being the results of having 'talented' generalist quick reflexes there will be, in the pool of all of humanity, people who's natural bio-mechanic disposition makes them have Table Tennis appropriate quick-reflexes. So if that person applies hard work and dedication to Table Tennis then they will be better than someone without the bio-mechanical advantage who puts in the same hard work and dedication. But if they apply hard work and dedication to another discipline that require fast reflexes they won't be any better as their 'talent' doesn't apply. I follow rugby, rugby is littered with players who were really good but who's body could not take the strain of the training and broke down through the effort. Clearly hard work and dedication alone was not enough for them - they needed a body that could respond favorably to the punishment they were taking.
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  You need to read the book, you disagreeing with the hypothesis with nothing to back up your assertions other than your opinion. Do you think human beings with super quick reflexes exist? That does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I fear we are at an impasse, you have your views and it appears they preclude reading anything that challenges them. Interestingly, I had similar views before reading the cited studies.
  - Marazan 12y ago
    No, I am saying that people have physiological maximums. No matter how hard I train I am not going to become taller (or shorter), no matter how hard I train my knee and ankles will only support a certain mount of force and torque I cannot push past that (without suffering repeated and continual injury) - this is law of the universe stuff. At the level of becoming very good indeed these limits have no effect on becoming better as you do not reach them, but at the elite level, at becoming the best they do. Do you really believe that the guy who came 2nd to 7th in the 2012 Olympic 100m sprint trained an appreciable, measurable, amount less than Usain Bolt - with less dedication, application and rigour? Do you think, say, Gatlin, Gaye and Bailyey trained in a worse environment less conducive to success than Bolt? Are you really saying you can go look Donnie MacFadyen in the face and say he just didn't train with enough dedication?