5 ms·

Counterexamples: - Vincent Van Gogh: Never painted anything until he was 27 - Dave McClure: Angel investor, who did not invest in anything until he was 40 -

Counterexamples: - Vincent Van Gogh: Never painted anything until he was 27 - Dave McClure: Angel investor, who did not invest in anything until he was 40 - Fauja Singh: Marathonist, who though marathons were 26km until he was 89(!) - Joseph Conrad: Successful writer at 39, he learned English in his twenties. - Stallone: If you discount soft porn star roles, he started acting in his mid twenties (ok, I concede this one, Stallone is not the ultimate actor :-P ) Naturally, these are anecdotal. But you should reconsider your hypothesis, and test for sample deviation. Naturally, most people will stick to what they are good at. Only a fraction will go out of their comfort zone. You must account for this bias. If your hypothesis is that most people won't master anything new later in life, you are probably correct. If your hypothesis is that, out of those people who try to master something new later in life, most won't succeed, I believe you are wrong. You are falling prey to a wrong sample selection. Out of those people who have put out the time, around me I see very good success rates. For a decent experiment, check out Ben Larcombe's table tennis expert in a year experiment: http://www.experttabletennis.com/expert-in-a-year/ http://www.experttabletennis.com/expert-in-a-year/ While he did actually fail his goal, a look at his end of year videos makes me label him as having mastered the art of table tennis as much as a random child would do under training (i.e. age played no role in the result).

sireat 12y ago
My apologies for not being factual enough and sounding too cynical without providing more detail. Appreciate the responses with actual counterexamples: - Van Gogh: was drawing as a child and continued to draw upon starting to paint. This is the solid foundation that I mentioned my OP. This is even closer than a shogi 9-dan becoming a chess master at 30. - Dave McClure: hit lottery(even if you argue it was skill, it has nothing to do with my hypothesis) with Paypal, after that he has bought a lot (500+) of lottery tickets. Nothing wrong with that but I do not see mastery (ala Buffett) VC is a field where it is hard to measure mastery. I suppose one could take 10 year risk adjusted returns as some measure. Again, you can start doing anything at any age, but do not expect any great results. - Fauja Singh: "As a young man, Fauja was an avid amateur runner, but he gave it up at the time of the 1947 India-Pakistan Partition." His records ar 90+ are fantastic for a 90 year old and probably 70-80 year olds but no more than that. - Joseph Conrad , writers in general are a tricky to evaluate as most of us have had "some" writing in teenage years. Surely, Conrad wrote in Polish and French in his teen years. One of my favorite writers Raymond Chandler did not really become a writer until age of 44, so does he disprove my hypothesis? If you look at his bio, he must have written/dictated quite a bit as an oil executive sober or not. Even more importantly he was a reporter for the Daily Express and the Bristol Western Gazette newspapers in his 20s. - Stallone: nothing unusual in his career, he might have started acting a few years later than most aspiring Hollywood hopefuls. His success with Rocky does not really dis/prove his mastery of acting. He is decent at his craft. - Ben Larcombe's table tennis experiment: his subject was his friend 24 year old Sam Priestley. Again this falls within my 25 year old rule. Besides that the experiment failed! Actually I agree with most of the conclusions that Ben Larcombe reached: http://www.experttabletennis.com/possible-master-table-tennis-12-months/ http://www.experttabletennis.com/possible-master-table-tenni... However again, age is a harsh mistress and past 40 the decline in your learning ability becomes noticable. We all need our delusions and the "I can do anything if only I set my mind to it" is quite a common one.
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree. In every success case, you'll find a nitpick. Van Gogh was innovative in his use of color, a characteristic clearly developed as an adult, and yet you dismiss it because he drew as a child. McClure has no value because he hit the jackpot once and rode from there. Conrad must surely have written in Polish and French (yet published nothing and left no manuscripts), which surely undermines the excellent storytelling abilities and remarkable prose he developed after he stopped working a full time job. A really old man can only run the marathon in over 6h, three times the world record (I'm a third his age, and I can, maybe, do the marathon walking and beat the 7h mark). If you do not understand the bias I have presented, central point in my argument that you sidestepped, at least understand this: You can choose to believe you can do anything, or you can choose not to. There's a chance of error in each choice. The loss in the error case, for each option, clearly favours choosing the optimist option. Even if all your steps forward are followed by backward steps, at least you are dancing Cha Cha, not moping your way down to a sad grave.

sireat 12y ago

My apologies for not being factual enough and sounding too cynical without providing more detail. Appreciate the responses with actual counterexamples: - Van Gogh: was drawing as a child and continued to draw upon starting to paint. This is the solid foundation that I mentioned my OP. This is even closer than a shogi 9-dan becoming a chess master at 30. - Dave McClure: hit lottery(even if you argue it was skill, it has nothing to do with my hypothesis) with Paypal, after that he has bought a lot (500+) of lottery tickets. Nothing wrong with that but I do not see mastery (ala Buffett) VC is a field where it is hard to measure mastery. I suppose one could take 10 year risk adjusted returns as some measure. Again, you can start doing anything at any age, but do not expect any great results. - Fauja Singh: "As a young man, Fauja was an avid amateur runner, but he gave it up at the time of the 1947 India-Pakistan Partition." His records ar 90+ are fantastic for a 90 year old and probably 70-80 year olds but no more than that. - Joseph Conrad , writers in general are a tricky to evaluate as most of us have had "some" writing in teenage years. Surely, Conrad wrote in Polish and French in his teen years. One of my favorite writers Raymond Chandler did not really become a writer until age of 44, so does he disprove my hypothesis? If you look at his bio, he must have written/dictated quite a bit as an oil executive sober or not. Even more importantly he was a reporter for the Daily Express and the Bristol Western Gazette newspapers in his 20s. - Stallone: nothing unusual in his career, he might have started acting a few years later than most aspiring Hollywood hopefuls. His success with Rocky does not really dis/prove his mastery of acting. He is decent at his craft. - Ben Larcombe's table tennis experiment: his subject was his friend 24 year old Sam Priestley. Again this falls within my 25 year old rule. Besides that the experiment failed! Actually I agree with most of the conclusions that Ben Larcombe reached: http://www.experttabletennis.com/possible-master-table-tennis-12-months/ http://www.experttabletennis.com/possible-master-table-tenni... However again, age is a harsh mistress and past 40 the decline in your learning ability becomes noticable. We all need our delusions and the "I can do anything if only I set my mind to it" is quite a common one.

sergiosgc 12y ago
We'll have to agree to disagree. In every success case, you'll find a nitpick. Van Gogh was innovative in his use of color, a characteristic clearly developed as an adult, and yet you dismiss it because he drew as a child. McClure has no value because he hit the jackpot once and rode from there. Conrad must surely have written in Polish and French (yet published nothing and left no manuscripts), which surely undermines the excellent storytelling abilities and remarkable prose he developed after he stopped working a full time job. A really old man can only run the marathon in over 6h, three times the world record (I'm a third his age, and I can, maybe, do the marathon walking and beat the 7h mark). If you do not understand the bias I have presented, central point in my argument that you sidestepped, at least understand this: You can choose to believe you can do anything, or you can choose not to. There's a chance of error in each choice. The loss in the error case, for each option, clearly favours choosing the optimist option. Even if all your steps forward are followed by backward steps, at least you are dancing Cha Cha, not moping your way down to a sad grave.