Obama affirms teh gay.

[boost]

Real sports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6YSvCsVJM

[WillburForce]

If I never open this thread again it will be too soon.

You'll be back

[jackvance]

I call BS. Someone can have a natural talent for driving same as they can for kicking a ball.

This has been extensively tested (twin studies etc) and it doesn't exist.

Every now and then the stars collide and it all comes together.

No, there are good reasons things happen not magic..

[WillburForce]

Before this carries on, we'll need you to give a concise definition of "natural talent."

Once you do that, explain how you are able to discern the difference between acquired skill and natural talent using, say, Senna as a subject.

Definition: Natural talent is an innate or inborn gift for a specific activity, either allowing one to demonstrate some immediate skill without practice, or to gain skill rapidly with minimal practice.

I think I have a natural talent for Google.

I don't know that much about Senna, only from the film. But from what I can gather, he started in carting, where he was recognised as having "talent" and raced against much old competitors. He then moved up and up the ranks until he became one of the greatest drivers of all time.

Another example. I play football (soccer). You soon notice there are people who have a natural talent for playing and those who don't. Some people can spot passes and make passes, others just don't have the ability and no matter how hard they try or practice they'll just not be able to do it. There is one guy I play with who is utterly useless (this is a friendly kickabout). I am certain that even if from the age of 3 he was trained by Pele and played football everyday, whereas I hadn't kicked a ball in 10 years after being in solitary confinement........... I could still skin him. All day everyday. Cause he fucking useless. Whereas I have a vague "natural talent" for playing football. Then when you look at top players........

[a500lbgorilla]

I think I have a natural talent for Google.

I don't know that much about Senna, only from the film. But from what I can gather, he started in carting, where he was recognised as having "talent" and raced against much old competitors.

Hahaha.

And I know I use this 'trick' a lot but just because people see talent in him doesn't mean there is, just that there really seems to be.

[a500lbgorilla]

Another example. I play football (soccer). You soon notice there are people who have a natural talent for playing and those who don't. Some people can spot passes and make passes, others just don't have the ability and no matter how hard they try or practice they'll just not be able to do it. There is one guy I play with who is utterly useless (this is a friendly kickabout). I am certain that even if from the age of 3 he was trained by Pele and played football everyday, whereas I hadn't kicked a ball in 10 years after being in solitary confinement........... I could still skin him. All day everyday. Cause he fucking useless. Whereas I have a vague "natural talent" for playing football. Then when you look at top players........

Just shooting from the hip here but I would say that some of those players have more practice at skills which translate well to the game than others.

You don't have to have practiced football to have put in hours of play time that would give you a leg up on someone who has spent hours playing at things utterly unlike football.

[jackvance]

Yes having comparable skills is very important, your brain is a muscle that is very similar to your other muscles. If you do a lot of jogging, this will train muscles that will be beneficial to you when playing soccer. If all you did was weight lifting, you wouldn't have this advantage, or much less so. The same is true for the brain and whatever mental 'modules' you have trained for.

Another thing, which is often overlooked, is encouragement from your environment. Studies show that this is what really makes people's skills spiral upward and creates a big gap between different people (which we think has to do with talent but nuh uh).

But it's a very common and maybe even intuitive misconception that innate talent counts for more than acquired skill. There were times we thought women weren't capable of doing proper math, so they were only taught kindergarten math. Ofcourse this is bullshit, but women being discouraged from actually trying at math by society made people really think they were incapable of it. Or when the common consensus was that blacks were so physically inferior to whites that it would be pointless to even let them compete. You can say that's racism, but people thought this was an objective truth. Until they let them actually try of course.

As a personal example, I was never good at rolling cigarettes. But I only did this on very rare occasion, and didn't really care as long as it was (barely) smokeable. But at one point I decided for myself I was gonna switch to rolling because it's cheaper, so I put myself to training it properly. The only thing that makes you get better at things is performing at the top of your ability. Now I can roll cigarettes that are indistinguishable from the best rollers in our group, and these guys are super critical, one of my friends even has his nickname from college derived from him rolling crappy joints.

So first I was always hearing how clumsy I was, how I wasn't good at 'these sorts of handy things' etc. If you'd have asked them I'm sure they would have said I just didn't have the talent for it. And now suddenly I do or what? There are just so many factors that determine skill which we don't naturally take into account.

[jackvance]

Btw I am stressing this a bit because I think this is information that can be beneficial to life. If you realize how much practice matters, you'll be more inclined to put in the work for the things you want to be good at.

[WillburForce]

I think people who deny there is natural talent at something are just jealous...."Yeah, I could do that, I just haven't bothered putting the time in" lolz

No doubt practice makes you better ldo. But someone like Zidane for instance could smoke and not train very much but was still miles ahead of his all the other players. Le Tissier, Gazza etc etc all these players who just had it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Jealous when regarding the supremely talented as having earned it?

[d0zer]

Jealous when regarding the supremely talented as having earned it?

I also thought that was strange. Usually the jealousy is towards people with "natural talent" from people who don't believe it's worth it for them to work at something.

This breaks down to nature vs nurture, and to be the absolute best at sports, or most things you often need a lot of both. Artistic talent is a little more nebulous due to the subjectivity involved, and though I've never heard of evidence for this, it's not outside the realm of possibility that there is some genetic component to artistic expression. That component of course still has to be nurtured by a lot of experience.

Every "child prodigy" story involves obsessive personalities and tons of time investment by the child. Maybe something came a little easier to the child so they were more likely to stick with something and they had the right environment to nurture their genetic advantage. Like most things, this is multi-faceted and I don't think it's right to take a side because reality is more complicated than that.

The problem with the term "natural talent", is the implication that nature gave that person talent instead of that person working to acquire the talent. A genetic predisposition towards excelling at something doesn't guarantee anything. I'd be willing to bet that there are tons of potential child prodigies out there who just lack the environmental support to cultivate the skills necessary to excel at what they're designed to excel at.

[jackvance]

Like most things, this is multi-faceted and I don't think it's right to take a side because reality is more complicated than that.

In this particular case, the consensus due to overwhelming evidence is that practice > innate talent. And the things for which we as people have an innate talent are all very well defined. Being good with rhythm, or at the other end being tonedeaf, is something you either have or don't. But this discussion is nothing new. In the 1930s you had behaviorists like Pavlov and Watson who went to one extreme, namely saying that everone can be taught everything if you have hypothetical control over their world as infants. This was countered in cognitive psychology (1070-) by the likes of Miller and Noam Chomsky, the latter who demonstrated that by association (what learning is in essence) you can't learn language. So that is something else which is hard-wired. But in general all the things that are hard-wired are very high-level, there is no such thing as an innate talent for soccer or racecar driving. There is also no talent for being good at music/composing, except that you need to not be tonedeaf which is genetic. Another well-known genetic factor is intelligence (or rather, IQ), which helps with a lot of things because that's basically how good you are at learning. Even the famous painters always produced so much more paintings than less succesful ones, that by their sheer volume and statistical probabilitly even if they were only of moderate talent they would have produced some masterpieces. Picasso is a good example.

[Savy]

No doubt practice makes you better ldo. But someone like Zidane for instance could smoke and not train very much but was still miles ahead of his all the other players. Le Tissier, Gazza etc etc all these players who just had it.

You realise Zidane is an awful example because he was one of the most driven hard working footballers in the game right?

I suppose a way of looking at it is people have a maximum potential to be good at something when they are born and then everything that happens to them either decreases this maximum or keeps it the same. That original maximum potential for most (not all) sports will be much smaller than people would think. Whereas it's actually the people who stop the decrease as much as possible by having the right surroundings, etc that appear much better than those who squander away the potential.

Even things like IQ are seriously affected by your surroundings as you are growing up.

[WillburForce]

Jealous when regarding the supremely talented as having earned it?

More meant it like (and was joking anyway) "I could be as good as Zidane if I'd played as much football as him" or "I could play like Slash, I just can't be bothered to practice scales, but if I did I would defo be as good as him" or even "I could outplay Sauce at HU, I just haven't put in the same study as him"

[d0zer]

In this particular case, the consensus due to overwhelming evidence is that practice > innate talent. And the things for which we as people have an innate talent are all very well defined. Being good with rhythm, or at the other end being tonedeaf, is something you either have or don't. But this discussion is nothing new. In the 1930s you had behaviorists like Pavlov and Watson who went to one extreme, namely saying that everone can be taught everything if you have hypothetical control over their world as infants. This was countered in cognitive psychology (1070-) by the likes of Miller and Noam Chomsky, the latter who demonstrated that by association (what learning is in essence) you can't learn language. So that is something else which is hard-wired. But in general all the things that are hard-wired are very high-level, there is no such thing as an innate talent for soccer or racecar driving. There is also no talent for being good at music/composing, except that you need to not be tonedeaf which is genetic. Another well-known genetic factor is intelligence (or rather, IQ), which helps with a lot of things because that's basically how good you are at learning. Even the famous painters always produced so much more paintings than less succesful ones, that by their sheer volume and statistical probabilitly even if they were only of moderate talent they would have produced some masterpieces. Picasso is a good example.

Of course there's no gene for soccer or racecar driving, what I'm saying is that there are genetic advantages for certain activities. There's a reason that the highest level some sports are dominated by ectomorphs, and others by by mesomorphs or endomorphs. Ultimately with enough practice anyone can be amazing at anything, but someone with the same amount of practice AND a genetic advantage will be better. I'm also suggesting that these genetic advantages could influence what you end up spending a lot of time practicing in the first place.

So yes, practice is the most dominant factor in excelling at something but it's not the only factor. Your history lesson in psych is relevant because psych used to be much more of a nature VS nurture debate where modern psych generally agrees that most things are nature AND nurture. Rarely 50/50 contributions, but there still is the recognition that both play a role to varying degrees.

[a500lbgorilla]

More meant it like (and was joking anyway) "I could be as good as Zidane if I'd played as much football as him" or "I could play like Slash, I just can't be bothered to practice scales, but if I did I would defo be as good as him" or even "I could outplay Sauce at HU, I just haven't put in the same study as him"

So what?

I think this is a good belief for two reasons. One is that you're not limiting yourself from giving it the ole' college try. If you believe that the difference between you and sauce is practice, effort, persistence, stick-to-it-tiv-ness, and all the other rah-rah go get get-up-and-go motivators you can think of, great! At least you're going to try, which is definitely required to ever vet the idea that you might be able to be as good as sauce if only.

And even if you believe you'll fail, which you very likely will, it's not hard to reconcile that with the belief that sauce's edge is somehow quantified in the history he's had with poker, because he's put in a tremendous amount of effort and will continue to. For you to match him some where down the line, you'd need to work twice as hard for quite a while and it's unlikely that that'll happen. Because the game probably dominates his mind. He's probably practicing it in his sleep.

But hey, all you'll need is to learn enough to get the basics, and if you ponder the basics long enough, you might begin to have many of the same insights as him.

[Galapogos]

This has been extensively tested (twin studies etc) and it doesn't exist.

Do you have a source for these studies? I find this interesting because I've known some guys that are really fucking talented at some sports and in a lot of their cases that talent has nothing to do with the amount they practice or how they were brought up.

Are guys like Gretzky and Lemieux (or insert other sport legends here) not talented, they just practiced more and had a more beneficial upbringing?

Not arguing, just find this confusing and would like to see how it has been proven.

[d0zer]

I find this interesting because I've known some guys that are really fucking talented at some sports and in a lot of their cases that talent has nothing to do with the amount they practice or how they were brought up.

How do you actually know how much practice they've had though? That's one of the big problems with these anecdotes you hear repeated. The other issue with them in validating the notion of "natural talent" is that there are transferable skills between different activities that can give someone the illusion of being a 'natural', even though they might have practiced an activity with related skills that has given them an advantage.

I've grappled with many people with no submission grappling experience. The ones who have experience in other martial arts, even arts that don't teach any grappling are inevitably tougher opponents as they have a better feel for how their body moves, have a better sense of balance & position etc. They also learn much quicker as they have experience learning physical techniques. If I didn't know better i'd say they had natural talent when the reality is that they just have intersecting skills.

[wufwugy]

There is an area in which I'm in the top .1 percentile of genetic "talent", yet it doesn't manifest unless I work at it

[a500lbgorilla]

Do you have a source for these studies? I find this interesting because I've known some guys that are really fucking talented at some sports and in a lot of their cases that talent has nothing to do with the amount they practice or how they were brought up.

Are guys like Gretzky and Lemieux (or insert other sport legends here) not talented, they just practiced more and had a more beneficial upbringing?

Not arguing, just find this confusing and would like to see how it has been proven.

Tiger Woods, the Williams sisters, Michael Jackson, there was some Hungarian chess fanatic who believed he could raise genius chessmaster kids and did, Michael Jordan's early years.

I don't think this is proof, I'm just listing other examples of super talented people who I think we can all recognize put in the effort to get good.

[boost]

Yeah, dozer makes the point that I think should help some of the natural talenters see the light.

One boy grows up on the great planes of the U.S.

Another boy grows up in a village in the Himalayas.

They both move to Paris to pursue their dream of being a tight rope walker. Who are you going to put money on to out survive the other? When they are introduced at their shows, without reference to topography, as being from Iowa and Nepal respectively, and the Nepalese out performs the American, do you say "oh, well, clearly the Nepalese boy has been balancing on cliff edges his whole life and the American has walked on flat ground since birth"? Or would you be more likely to say, "wow, that brown kid sure has a natural talent for tight rope walking!"

And herein lies the origin of this meme. Our brain likes explanations, yet we don't have complete information, so not knowing any better we toss out what seems to be a reasonable answer and go with it.

Now of course I gave a simplistic example, but we live in a complicated world and there are infinite variables that influence the trajectory of a given person's existence. When you acknowledge how powerful seemingly minor input can be, and how vast the sum of input is, you'll realize it's really not necessary for there to be natural talent. Clearly the lack of a need for natural talent doesn't prove its nonexistence, but it does seem to shift the burden of proof onto the believers. So far I've seen anecdotes and what amounts to "I believe." But that doesn't cut it with god, doesn't cut it with natural talent.

[jackvance]

Do you have a source for these studies? I find this interesting because I've known some guys that are really fucking talented at some sports and in a lot of their cases that talent has nothing to do with the amount they practice or how they were brought up.

Are guys like Gretzky and Lemieux (or insert other sport legends here) not talented, they just practiced more and had a more beneficial upbringing?

Not arguing, just find this confusing and would like to see how it has been proven.

Source is the university class I'm studying atm. I didn't get to that chapter yet but I remember it from class.

[Lukie]

People vary significantly in height, length, strength, power, speed, acceleration, vertical jump, VO2 max, ability to control ones body in space, reaction time, hand-eye coordination, etc.

You don't have a blank slate in athletics at birth. Very few people have the genetic makeup to be competitive at the highest levels of powerlifting or marathon running and I would argue that nobody in the history of the world could have ever been competitive, based on modern day records, at either one of their choosing.

It gets a bit more convoluted as sports go from the purely physical to the more skill-based, and many sports have aspects of both.

[Lukie]

watching the NBA Finals

Now I am a pretty big and athletic guy.. 6'2" without shoes (would most likely be listed as 6'4" in the NBA, based on how height is typically measured with shoes and rounded up), fast, strong, coordinated, spent a lot of time in the weight room etc.

and yet I would be some combination of smaller, slower, and weaker than every single player on the court, and it's not even close.

I am bigger than a lot of the guards, but I am not going to fool myself into thinking that I could stay in front of one of those guys, no matter how hard I trained in my life. That is just a reality check. I was more of a baseball player anyway, trained my ass off in that sport, and still wasn't good enough.

[Lukie]

I am also very well coordinated. For example I can not play ping pong for months, and easily spike just about any shot with my strong hand, and get back most people's spikes after a little bit of a warmup. Heck I can play left handed (off-hand) and still spike decently well and get back a lot of spikes even with very little practice using that hand in my life. Volleyball I am one of the harder and more accurate hitters I have ever seen.

Yet despite all of that, there are few positions I could have ever reasonably competed for at the highest levels of american football, basketball, or baseball. I would say my best bets would have been quarterback, kicker/punter, big safety or small linebacker (maybe), point guard (huge stretch), pitcher, or outfielder. And even the part about being an outfielder, I just couldn't put the ball over the fence often enough. Maybe somebody could explain that to me, since baseball players are a bunch of lazy fatties... I am a big/athletic dude and worked my ass off in the weight room... any explanations?? I say it is a combination of genetics and (not using) anabolic drugs, but am interested in hearing other possibilities.

[kiwiMark]

It's too soon lukie.

[Lukie]

You'll be back

I regret it already.

[wufwugy]

cant avoid it

[Lukie]

what wuf said

[Lukie]

although I am bigger, leaner, and better looking than that guy

by the way wuf, you used to be pretty big into olympic weightlifting. How much of a genetic component do you think there is in that sport? That is body anthropometry, natural strength/power production, and all of that.

If I worked as hard as humanly possible from age 5 for the rest of my life, could I ever have been the next Lu Xiaojun? What about Jon North??

[wufwugy]

although I am bigger, leaner, and better looking than that guy

by the way wuf, you used to be pretty big into olympic weightlifting. How much of a genetic component do you think there is in that sport? That is body anthropometry, natural strength/power production, and all of that.

If I worked as hard as humanly possible from age 5 for the rest of my life, could I ever have been the next Lu Xiaojun? What about Jon North??

I don't think the genetic component is quantifiable because it's essential but not determinative, which makes it paradoxically both determinative and non-determinative based on perspective

I think what's really going on here is that people have genetic bases that set peaks and limits, and those bases can be expressed through behavior and environment. All the great athletes indeed do work harder than any others, but they also have better genes

The reason I mentioned my own .1 percentile thing is that I'm pretty sure I have the genetic base for international level wrestling, but due to not nurturing that potential, it doesn't manifest. Even though my athleticism has been top tier in the past, I've also been unbearably out of shape at other times. An example is that I was once in the hospital for so long that I couldn't even do two pushups, but after two years of weight training I looked like I was on steroids


The short of it is that you can't do something you don't have the genes for, but genes alone are never enough, and you always have better genes than you think

[Lukie]

never said genes alone are enough

'essential but not determinative' is good enough for me.

[boost]

"natural talent" is pretty much always used as a phrase relative to the subject's peers. Not every player in the NBA is said to have "natural talent", yet all have the genetic make up to compete at the highest levels of the sport. So is it genetics, or not?

[WillburForce]

What if we just take off the natural and say talented?

[a500lbgorilla]

And herein lies the origin of this meme. Our brain likes explanations, yet we don't have complete information, so not knowing any better we toss out what seems to be a reasonable answer and go with it.

I like this line.

Though I would only care about a burden of proof if someone we're demanding I prove them wrong. I think there should be considered an opportunity for people who continue to not believe to proliferate in the evidence showing that even if there is a thing like natural talent, some inherent starting point, the overwhelming majority of your gains in any skill will come from everything you do beyond that starting point.

At the very end, considering the two very best at any one skill, the discrepancy in how much effort they put in will vastly out pace the discrepancy in their natural talent.

Or maybe natural talent can be considered some multiplier where only a little effort goes a long way but I can't even imagine how the mechanics of that would work and wouldn't be mimicable or transferable. If you can work smarter, why can't I?

[Lukie]

"natural talent" is pretty much always used as a phrase relative to the subject's peers. Not every player in the NBA is said to have "natural talent", yet all have the genetic make up to compete at the highest levels of the sport. So is it genetics, or not?

What are we defining as natural talent? If it is things like reaction time and hand eye coordination, yes, there is a genetic component to that too. The whole idea of being born to do something specific is probably not the best way to look at it but using the earlier example of a 'gifted racecar driver', he would probably be pretty damn good at other activities/sports that involve reaction time, hand eye coordination, measuring distances, and controlling his body in space.

Also every NBA player has natural talent lol... however you want to define it. Having courtside seats to an NBA game is one of the cooler experiences and even crappy teams (think tank-mode Cavs) have absolutely tremendous athletes. The game just plays so much higher, faster, and more physical than it looks on TV. It's not even close.

There are a thousands of guys in the gym right now who will never be like Mike. No, in order to be like Mike, you need to start out being 6'6" with 11 inch hands, have the natural power to be able to dunk from the free throw line, elite coordination/reaction/all that natural talent stuff, a legit HOF teammate and GOAT coach, then pour in all the hard work and blood, sweat, and tears and then you have MJ. It's not that all that grueling hard work didn't help MJ. Of course it did. It's just that there are soooo many people who work extremely hard that don't make it to the highest levels of professional sports because they simply aren't good enough. MJ could have worked only half as hard as he did and still been a pretty damn good NBA player, and I don't want to hear about the story about him getting cut from a team when he was 13 freaking years old.

I am still waiting for the reasoning as to why you see a plethora of white linemen in the NFL but not a single white cornerback.

[Lukie]

In fairness, I have talked mostly about sports/activities that range from purely physical like powerlifting/marathon running to sports with a huge physical size/strength/speed makeup like basketball, american football, and even baseball (what a ridiculous inclusion, I know)

My comments above apply relatively less to sports like hockey and soccer. Key word relatively.

[Lukie]

I should also make it clear that obviously hard work maximizes ones own talent or genetics or whatever you want to call it.

It's just that in the context of professional sports, there are a lot of people who are busting their asses just as hard if not harder than you are. I can't stress enough how working extremely hard just isn't that unique; before I used the examples of local crossfit boxes where people do torturous workouts just to be part of a group and look a little better. Cross country teams and people running marathons all over the country. Go to the local gym and see how people go out of their way to make them harder, even if it is extremely inefficient. I knew dudes who spent seemingly all day, every day in the gym working on their shot and their crossover dribble and all of that.

You telling me (Browns fan here) that receiver Josh Gordon had a great rookie season because he worked so hard? That he devoted his entire life to the game? Please. I bet the guy just showed up, got through the admittedly tough practices, did some work in the weight room, blah blah blah. The guy failed (at least) 3 drug tests in college, and has now been suspended by the NFL for substance abuse (meaning multiple failed tests since he entered the NFL), so most likely at least 5 failed drug tests in the last few years. And we're talking weed and codeine, not steroids.

Think that maybe being 6'4" with 4.4 40 yard dash speed and enormous hands has something to do with it? Those are things that you really can't teach or train. Well you can train power/speed to an extent but it is dramatically influenced by genetics.

[Lukie]

When in doubt, just type more words.

[jackvance]

"natural talent" is pretty much always used as a phrase relative to the subject's peers. Not every player in the NBA is said to have "natural talent", yet all have the genetic make up to compete at the highest levels of the sport. So is it genetics, or not?

This is one of the main points I have been trying to make. How you compare to your peers at a formative age, is crucial. That is what makes your skill spiral out of control and makes it seem like you have innate talent etc.

And the second point I have been trying to portray is that what Willbut is saying, is perfectly normal. In fact, studies show that we as people intuitively think we can discern natural talent in other people, but as it turns out, we can't. We only see results, we don't look at all the work that went into it, or the underlying social and psychological reasons that made a person push himself to excellence, and we mistake this for him being a natural. A guy like Zidane will look like a total natural talent, and this myth is permeated.

I have a great example of all of this, also about how much comparable skills matter, but it's a bit much too type up atm maybe I'll post it later. But another very impoortant thing to know that I remember, is that studies show that we have only about 4 hours of real creative analytical thought per day. And those are most important to improve, because you only improve when you're practicing at the top of your ability! (you don't get particularly better at walking, although you do it every day, is the common example here)

Most of these studies in excellence so far have been done with top instrument players, like violin, piano. To see how this concept translates into reality for these people, they were asked to record their day. And it checked out, what these people do is practice the creative parts first, they compose after they get up when they're still fresh, and lateron they mostly practice the mechanical parts of performing some song.

And the biggest detractor from your time period of peak performances, is social stress. Problems with your girlfriend for example, or in your circle of friends or family, can be enough to wear you out mentally and not able to perform well. While we know this intuitively, it's all very good to keep in mind imo, and to know this has been demonstrated by scientific studies.

[Savy]

That's not what he's saying at all though.

He's saying he could never play in the NBA because he's not a big hench black guy nor no matter what he did would he ever be a big hench black guy. There obviously are genetic advantages people have, but they are relatively minor. What Lukie is forgetting that with something as big as the NBA a relatively minor advantage goes a long way.

[jackvance]

That's not what he's saying at all though.

He's saying he could never play in the NBA because he's not a big hench black guy nor no matter what he did would he ever be a big hench black guy. There obviously are genetic advantages people have, but they are relatively minor. What Lukie is forgetting that with something as big as the NBA a relatively minor advantage goes a long way.

Yeah I went on more of a tangent because he made the peer comparison point. Totally agree with what you say btw. A similar thing can probably be said about heavy mental tasks. A general rule of thumb is for example that you need an IQ of atleast 120 to be able to complete a doctorate.

[Lukie]

That's not what he's saying at all though.

He's saying he could never play in the NBA because he's not a big hench black guy nor no matter what he did would he ever be a big hench black guy. There obviously are genetic advantages people have, but they are relatively minor. What Lukie is forgetting that with something as big as the NBA a relatively minor advantage goes a long way.

I am not forgetting that. That is pretty much the entire point actually.

There is no shortage of people out there who are extremely dedicated at getting better at basketball. But take two guys who both work extremely hard and are equally dedicated, I like the odds of the guy who is a little bigger, stronger, and more explosive.

Heck give me the guy with a quicker reaction time as well (not equal among people.)

[Savy]

I am not forgetting that. That is pretty much the entire point actually.

There is no shortage of people out there who are extremely dedicated at getting better at basketball. But take two guys who both work extremely hard and are equally dedicated, I like the odds of the guy who is a little bigger, stronger, and more explosive.

Heck give me the guy with a quicker reaction time as well (not equal among people.)

I may be wrong, but I don't think I (or others) were saying that there is absolutely no genetic advantages to be had. Just that the whole "natural talent" thing is completely blown out of proportion and that hard work is massively more important.

[Lukie]

I may be wrong, but I don't think I (or others) were saying that there is absolutely no genetic advantages to be had. Just that the whole "natural talent" thing is completely blown out of proportion and that hard work is massively more important.

To reach the highest levels of most highly competitive sports you really need to have both.

I don't blame people for thinking hard work is the only thing that matters in athletics. After all, it is what most of us have been told our entire lives.

[jackvance]

To reach the highest levels of most highly competitive sports you really need to have both.

I agree. But commonly it is said that some people just 'have it', and the impact of practice and social stimulation is downplayed. Just think of all the people that had all the genetic components in place to also be a pro athlete or NHL/basketball/soccer player, but never made it, as life never dealt them the hand that they needed to reach their full potential. There are so many of them.

Simple example, you were born in august 2005, and you compete in soccer practice against people from the same seasonal year as you, so from september 2004-august 2005. So you are being judged when playing against kids who are older and taller than you. If you have the exact same learning curve and even much more potential than the others, you will simply perform worse because you are younger than the others, and likely never go anywhere because everyone (including you) thinks you aren't that good at it. This is a very realistic thing btw.

I don't blame people for thinking hard work is the only thing that matters in athletics. After all, it is what most of us have been told our entire lives.

Do people really say that? The people that excel are mostly called "super talented" in my opinion, saying how hard work got a person there is reserved for people who went from being bad to being decent through very hard work.

[Lukie]

The age thing is pretty interesting. Some of this is speculation but surely there are a plethora of reasons.

Good players tend to keep playing. I mean this at all ages. For example when I played baseball, every year some kids quit, and it was much more likely that the people who sucked would quit than the ones who were actually good. This was basically true every year, voluntarily or involuntarily. Take a high school freshman who is nearly a full year younger than the person he is competing with and maybe he quits, maybe he doesn't get playing time, maybe he doesn't feel good about himself and doesn't feel like the boss he would otherwise (saying this seriously, confidence is a big deal in sports)

Imperfect scouting. Age should be stressed very heavily and is underrated not just in pros but college level as well. In fact the NBA draft is coming up, and if you ever read the advanced analytics predictions, age is one of the single most important factors in determining future success (as defined by various models, for example player efficiency rating). It is so important that the best models have date of birth down the the specific day or month at the most spacious-- not year. So if you're comparing a college freshman vs a college sophomore (assuming exactly 1 year difference), the sophomore should be a better player by a wide margin to consider them roughly equal prospects.

[jackvance]

You can verify this phenomenon yourself. Look at all the professional soccer players of some country (in the study I saw it was Holland) and you'll see it is weighted towards people from the first 3 months of the seasonal year (sept-nov) and the first 6 months of the seasonal year (sept-jan). This last one is over 60% I believe, which cannot be countered by birth ditribution. And when you look at NHL, you'll see a similar thing, but with the months that coincide with the start of their season.

[d0zer]

how many more pages of this before we should change the thread title, or is it actually quite fitting?

[eugmac]

these days when somebody hears me play the violin and tells me i'm really talented, i kind of feel offended. if talent is the in-born characteristic, well it's the one thing i can't help. whether i have drive and work ethic to actually be the best i can be, well, that's the hard part the deserves to be respected and applauded. Not the talent bit.

[boost]

Lukie, you keep comparing Jordan to some local gym rats.

Like I said, natural talent is awarded to people relative to their peers. You can hear people tossing the comment around watching a game of streetball when talking about a guy who is 5'5. He could never be in the NBA, but he has a "natural talent" for the game-- he sees the holes in the defense, he knows when to pass, when to shoot, when to slow the game down, when to commit to a breakaway. He has natural talent. No one is ever referring to the size of an athlete's hands when saying they have "natural talent." Never, ever.

Of course a race car driver will easily excel at other quick reaction, hand eye coordination based games and sports. How does this prove natural talent? It only proves that these activities require similar skill sets to be good.

And again you're tossing around anecdotes with terribly incomplete evidence. The player you mentioned with a fantastic rookie year, but what appears to be evidence of a lack of dedication is interesting, but an incomplete story. He could have been the most dedicated player ever, up until college when he got a ton of attention by scouts and it seemed to him a lock that he'd be going to the league. Then he slacked and started partying. If this were the case, his formative years, spent dedicated to honing his game, could have had enough of an impact that minor upkeep of his skills and a bit of luck was sufficient to put up impressive numbers for a season.

[Lukie]

@Jack did you read what I wrote? I was speculating as to the reasons why what you posted might be true, not trying to disprove it. I would be curious for a study like that to expound a bit and to include other sports as well.

Lukie, you keep comparing Jordan to some local gym rats.

Like I said, natural talent is awarded to people relative to their peers. You can hear people tossing the comment around watching a game of streetball when talking about a guy who is 5'5. He could never be in the NBA, but he has a "natural talent" for the game-- he sees the holes in the defense, he knows when to pass, when to shoot, when to slow the game down, when to commit to a breakaway. He has natural talent. No one is ever referring to the size of an athlete's hands when saying they have "natural talent." Never, ever.

Of course a race car driver will easily excel at other quick reaction, hand eye coordination based games and sports. How does this prove natural talent? It only proves that these activities require similar skill sets to be good.

And again you're tossing around anecdotes with terribly incomplete evidence. The player you mentioned with a fantastic rookie year, but what appears to be evidence of a lack of dedication is interesting, but an incomplete story. He could have been the most dedicated player ever, up until college when he got a ton of attention by scouts and it seemed to him a lock that he'd be going to the league. Then he slacked and started partying. If this were the case, his formative years, spent dedicated to honing his game, could have had enough of an impact that minor upkeep of his skills and a bit of luck was sufficient to put up impressive numbers for a season.

I am curious what your explanation is for why there are a plethora of white offensive linemen in the NFL but not a single white cornerback. Whites outnumber blacks 6:1 in the United States (where nearly all NFL talent comes from, being primarily an american game), most likely outnumber them as high as high school football level, but not a single one worked hard enough to make it to the NFL? I know that you don't think that, but acknowledging the real reason is a dagger for your argument.

What about world-class sprinters (long jumpers, etc.), or world-class marathon runners? Is this all about work ethic, or is there something more at play?

Define natural talent specifically and we can talk about it. You seem to be referring to it as craftiness and skill at a particular sport and I am gearing it more towards quantifiable attributes like size, speed, and reaction time.

Do you really want me to give other examples of knucklehead athletes who excelled at sports despite their work ethic and not because of it?

[jackvance]

@Jack did you read what I wrote? I was speculating as to the reasons why what you posted might be true, not trying to disprove it. I would be curious for a study like that to expound a bit and to include other sports as well.

Yeah I was just elaborating a bit more, don't have the time atm to type my posts out properly, multitabling.

[Lukie]

Yeah I was just elaborating a bit more, don't have the time atm to type my posts out properly, multitabling.

(former) pro tip: close the browser, close aim, close any other distractions besides maybe music and think about what the hell you are doing.

[jackvance]

Very true.

[Jack Sawyer]

Thread summary:

[boost]

You can gear it towards quantifiable attributes all you want, but that's absolutely not what the phrase means. The phrase is vague and refers to the unquantifiable. It is a phrase which is tossed out there when we don't understand-- when we don't have complete information. Fairly deflating to your argument, you rarely hear someone use the phrase in reference to a sport or activity which has very little skill involved, but instead is all about brute strength, endurance, or some combination. When agility, dexterity, and "a mind for the game" are involved, the phrase is invoked. These are less tangible, and therefore harder to quanitfy, hence the lack of knowledge and insistence on filling that gap with this nonsense.

Again, you're attempting (on purpose, or not) to define the phrase as something it isn't. It just isn't used that way. Some position in a sport being dominated by a group which apparently shares a similar genetic code could be do to bias scouting/coaching/encouragement, such as the quarterback being a position held almost exclusively by whites until recently. However, I don't think that's always the case, we've discussed this here or elsewhere, and I agree that genetics seems to play a significant role in these racial disparities in positions. But even with that concession, we still aren't calling all NFL cornerbacks "naturally talented." We are reserving the phrase for those who excel above their peers, the ones who have some skill-based quality we have trouble quantifying. All of the cornerbacks in the NFL may be fortunate enough to have the proper genetics to allow them to get there, but what gives them "natural talent" is their skills.

Again, I'll point you back to my example of a short man playing ball in the park being granted this acclaim by onlookers. He doesn't have the genetics to compete in the NBA, but he appears to have everything else to do so. Nobody is looking at the clumsy tall guy on the court and saying "he's naturally talented."

[boost]

(former) pro tip: close the browser, close aim, close any other distractions besides maybe music and think about what the hell you are doing.

Even music can be terribly distracting. At least for me, lyrics, esp rap, were generally a poor pick for grinding. Volume and tempo were important too.

[Jack Sawyer]

You really can't teach 7'1" 325 pounds of muscle. You can, however, teach a dropstep.

[Savy]

To reach the highest levels of most highly competitive sports you really need to have both.

I don't blame people for thinking hard work is the only thing that matters in athletics. After all, it is what most of us have been told our entire lives.

What you're forgetting though is that if you could somehow pick the person who was genetically best to be a basketball player from birth and let's say he grew up somewhere that he didn't ever play basketball and he didn't really eat enough and eh got to the age of 21ish (prime of his life) then almost anyone who played basketball from 11-21 would be miles better than him.

Also people who tend to have any sort of genetic advantage get picked out and play higher levels and hence dedicate more time to playing the sport than other people. Hence what jack is saying. So not only are they genetically a bit better, but that slight genetic advantage is magnified by their extra playing time. I bet if you look at the distribution of all people who are really tall but not so skewed that there is such a tiny sample size, that the majority of them playing in the NBA were those that had the majority of their growth when they were younger than the rest.

[Lukie]

What you're forgetting though is that if you could somehow pick the person who was genetically best to be a basketball player from birth and let's say he grew up somewhere that he didn't ever play basketball and he didn't really eat enough and eh got to the age of 21ish (prime of his life) then almost anyone who played basketball from 11-21 would be miles better than him.

Also people who tend to have any sort of genetic advantage get picked out and play higher levels and hence dedicate more time to playing the sport than other people. Hence what jack is saying. So not only are they genetically a bit better, but that slight genetic advantage is magnified by their extra playing time. I bet if you look at the distribution of all people who are really tall but not so skewed that there is such a tiny sample size, that the majority of them playing in the NBA were those that had the majority of their growth when they were younger than the rest.

You keep saying that I am forgetting things but really they are just aspects of the topic that haven't even been brought up yet. Of course I realize this. There are a lot more Ezekiel Ansahs out there who didn't have the good fortune of being 'discovered'.

You know, the guy who grew up in Ghana, who had not played american football his entire life, walked onto BYU, played for a few years, and was picked 5th overall this past NFL draft.

[Lukie]

You really can't teach 7'1" 325 pounds of muscle. You can, however, teach a dropstep.

Sounds like Shaq, who shot about 50% from the free throw line, had no offensive game outside of 5 feet yet in his prime was one of the most dominant players in NBA history.

[Lukie]

You can gear it towards quantifiable attributes all you want, but that's absolutely not what the phrase means. The phrase is vague and refers to the unquantifiable. It is a phrase which is tossed out there when we don't understand-- when we don't have complete information. Fairly deflating to your argument, you rarely hear someone use the phrase in reference to a sport or activity which has very little skill involved, but instead is all about brute strength, endurance, or some combination. When agility, dexterity, and "a mind for the game" are involved, the phrase is invoked. These are less tangible, and therefore harder to quanitfy, hence the lack of knowledge and insistence on filling that gap with this nonsense.

meh, I have heard the terms natural talent and natural ability refer to purely physical traits on a number of occasions, for example an extremely fast/tall receiving prospect would probably be referred to as naturally talented, whereas short, slow (but quick) Wes Welker would almost certainly never be considered naturally talented, even though he exhibits the craftiness, agility, and 'mind for the game' that you speak of.

I don't see how these semantics have anything to do about anything, but whatever

[Lukie]

Even music can be terribly distracting. At least for me, lyrics, esp rap, were generally a poor pick for grinding. Volume and tempo were important too.

Proposition:

You make one more post to wrap up a couple loose ends about natural ability and sports, then we turn this into the music thread.

[boost]

Let's just go with music? I think your last post wraps up this back and forth quite well.

I'll defer to you.

[kiwiMark]

I'll help you guys out.

So I always thought the whole "pitcher or catcher" thing was dumb because obviously you'd take turn about, but I continue to see it propagated in movies/television. I mean I can see wanting it plugged in your pooper if you're into it but are there really guys that then don't want a go giving him the old whatfor in return?

[Lukie]

epic thread derail somehow actually gets the thread back on track

[JKDS]

I'll help you guys out.

So I always thought the whole "pitcher or catcher" thing was dumb because obviously you'd take turn about, but I continue to see it propagated in movies/television. I mean I can see wanting it plugged in your pooper if you're into it but are there really guys that then don't want a go giving him the old whatfor in return?

The answer is in your question. Some people just arnt into having things plugged into their pooper, as much as they may like plugging into someone else's. So, even if the catcher wanted payback, the pitcher may not be into that.

Easy straight guy example: Those that want to try anal, but dont want to be buttfucked themselves.

[eugmac]

genetic predispositions obviously matter, just watch porn. i mean i don't have enough talent to compete with that, fuck!

[ISillyDurrrAK]

When I first read the title I kinda thought Obama confirmed he is gay, lol

[Savy]

genetic predispositions obviously matter, just watch porn. i mean i don't have enough talent to compete with that, fuck!

There are pornstars with small dicks. Also the equivalent would be that they were good in bed and I imagine a lot of the really big guys would just hurt girls and bigger =/= better although up to a certain point it helps.

[d0zer]

There are pornstars with small dicks. Also the equivalent would be that they were good in bed and I imagine a lot of the really big guys would just hurt girls and bigger =/= better although up to a certain point it helps.

There are pornstars with average to slightly above average sized dicks, but they make up the minority of male porn stars.

You don't have to be "good in bed" to be a successful male porn star, you just have to be able to keep your dick reliably hard on camera and have a big dick, and lol @ porn chicks being hurt by big dicks. Those girls can handle it. What you're saying is largely true in the real world, but not in porn.

[jackvance]

When I first read the title I kinda thought Obama confirmed he is gay, lol

Choosing to spend his carreer surrounded by by old white men? He probably is.

[Savy]

There are pornstars with average to slightly above average sized dicks, but they make up the minority of male porn stars.

You don't have to be "good in bed" to be a successful male porn star, you just have to be able to keep your dick reliably hard on camera and have a big dick, and lol @ porn chicks being hurt by big dicks. Those girls can handle it. What you're saying is largely true in the real world, but not in porn.

There are pornstars with small dicks. That's a fact, if you really want me to I can post some pics. I also was saying good in bed as in real people fucking would be the equivalent, not that pornstars have to be good in bed. As you said, you just have to be able to keep hard (actually so much more important than size). And there are some guys who are too big for pretty much anyone.

[d0zer]

That's a fact, if you really want me to I can post some pics.

Might as well, this IS the gay thread