Why Athletes Are Geniuses | Hacker News Reader

Why Athletes Are Geniuses

discovermagazine.com

46 pointsbranden32 comments

"Del Percio argues, is that the brains of athletes are more efficient, so they produce the desired result with the help of fewer neurons. Del Percio’s research suggests that the more efficient a brain, the better job it does in sports. ... but even the most genetically well-endowed prodigy clearly needs practice—-lots of it—-to develop the brain of an athlete. As soon as someone starts to practice a new sport, his brain begins to change, and the changes continue for years."

This is what physical education was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, it's turned into, at best, an incompetent teacher with a whistle shouting at kids, or, at worst, disappeared altogether. I think we, as a society, are missing out on something pretty big.

When was this golden age of phys ed? I'll admit that I don't have a ton of knowledge of the history of gym class, but if depictions of phys ed in movies or television are anything to go by, 'incompetent teacher with whistle' pretty much describes it in its entirety.

Maybe it was like the golden age of New Math: theoretically supposed to happen, but never really did.

Sketerpot's pretty much right. I'm no actual PE historian (somehow I doubt such a thing exists), but I've heard several times that what the article describes is how it was supposed to work. It probably never did work that way, though.

I'm really reaching here, but I'm pretty sure that idea goes back to Plato, if not even earlier.

I'm no actual PE historian (somehow I doubt such a thing exists)

Apparently there is such a thing as PE history: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...

(Ya, I'm surprised too)

Not quite as far back as Plato, but I was reading Seneca the other day who whines that physical education in Imperial Rome ain't what it used to be:

Can we possibly look on this as a liberal accomplishment for the youth of Rome, whom our ancestors trained to stand up straight and throw a javelin, to toss the caber, and manage a horse, and handle weapons? They never used to teach their children anything that could be learned in a reclining posture.

You forgot the laminated lesson plans. Perfect for when you spill your coffee during class. Wipe them off and you're good to go.

I agree with you in general, but watch out for the over-generalization. There are gym teachers out there who are as effective, caring, and dedicated as the best classroom teachers, and they impact the lives of some of their students as much as their classroom counterparts do for gifted and/or struggling students in an academic setting. Your "at best" description is way off.

"Ruth the Superman
The tests revealed the fact that Ruth is 90 per cent efficient compared with a human average of 60 per cent.
That his eyes are about 12 per cent faster than those of the average human being.
That his ears function at least 10 per cent faster than those of the ordinary man. That his nerves are steadier than those of 499 out of 500 persons.
That in attention and quickness of perception he rated one and a half times above the human average.

That in intelligence, as demonstrated by the quickness and accuracy of understanding, he is approximately 10 per cent above normal."

Popular Science, 1921

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-ba...

I think athletes also have an easier time pushing themselves to their limits. They are acclimated to exerting themselves to the point of physical pain/extreme fatigue. The psychological process that makes this acceptable to athletes may translate to other parts of their life, positively or negatively.

Just a theory, as I have no evidence besides my own experience.

Not just your theory. Read up on the marshmallow test--it turns out that people with higher levels of self-control do better academically than people with higher IQs.

The math by the commentator sucks, but this goal is still a masterpiece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXA0PoEE6Y

Are you sure he was targeting the goalpost? Maybe it was a failed cross that just gone lucky. Happened to me, too.

while it is possible it was a bad cross, he's definitely capable of ridiculous shots. Here's another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5XpXU8TBoo

Roberto Carlos' strategy was to hammer his shots as hard as possible and cross his fingers as regards accuracy or a lucky deflection.

Another example, with one of the most hilarious pieces of commentary I've ever heard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW2d-QrnFgA

An (unscientific) study was conducted by one of the UK Sunday newspapers a few years back regarding footballers (soccer players) intellect. The conclusion was that the reason some players are so gifted on the pitch is that they are quite, ah, dense off it. Reading some quotes from some famous players seemed to back that theory up.

the most interesting part is at the very tip of the inverted pyramid: "The scientists also trained another group of people on the same game, but with a twist. They put a battery on top of the head of each subject, sending a small current through the surface of the brain toward a group of neurons in the primary motor cortex. The electric stimulation allowed people to learn the game better. By the end of five days of training, the battery-enhanced players could move the cursor faster and make fewer errors than the control group."

This is the second time this week I've seen something about neuroscience moving from correlation to causation. I can't remember where I saw the other one but it had to do with people making different moral judgments when certain brain regions were stimulated

I also found this to be the most interesting part of the article. I was surprised that the current had a positive, localized effect, even though it was being applied to the skin instead of the brain itself.

I think the article's speculation on doping athletes (and perhaps other learners) with electrical stimulation is quite valid... The article links to the research paper, which lists the exact device and method used, and it looks to be cheap, widely available, unregulated, non-invasive, and undetectable. I wonder if there are any long-term side effects?

I think they are geniuses when their brains can calculate complex mechanics on the fly. Think of a quarterback throwing the ball to a receiver when he is running from left to right while the receiver is running down field on a post route. And the defense is blocking his visibility. And the wind is blowing. And it's been raining, making the ball slightly heavier. And the ball is slippery, changing the coefficient of static friction for his grip.

That's an extreme case, but we kind of take it for granted when we simply call this coordination. Coordination is thought of as a physical skill, not necessarily a mental one. But it would be a pretty tough problem to fully model with a pencil and paper.

Can we just assume that developing the brain in way that makes it better for golf or basketball has any transferable value? Richard Feynman couldn't have been like Lebron James, and vice versa, but can you really argue that perhaps he would have been better off learning more sports rather than reading, thinking, and tinkering with electronics?

Who's making that argument?

The article seems to be making it implicitly, by calling athletes "geniuses".

Genius? Or just highly-skilled?

Both:

"Good genes may account for some of the differences in ability, but even the most genetically well-endowed prodigy clearly needs practice—lots of it—to develop the brain of an athlete. As soon as someone starts to practice a new sport, his brain begins to change, and the changes continue for years."

pray tell what exactly is the difference

Well, with sports it's a lot of repeating things to perfect them. This speeds up response time. With, say, something intellectual, it's stretching the mind -- so to speak -- to do entirely different things. Not slamming sports. Just questioning applying the term "genius" here. Agile, yes. Expert, yes. But genius?

Yes, genius. Learning to write a poem is a lot like learning to throw a ball. In both cases, mastering a skill requires practice - whether you call it "a lot of repeating things" or "stretching the mind." The fact that physical skills also require physical capabilities (muscle strength, flexibility etc) doesn't diminish the mental aspect of it.

"Learning to write a poem is a lot like learning to throw a ball. In both cases, mastering a skill requires practice"

I don't disagree, but I think due to our evolutionary history one requires significantly less practice than the other.

What leads you to this conclusion? I am not a natural athlete nor a gifted writer, but I don't find one to be significantly less challenging than the other.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but it seems to me we've been running around hunting for a lot longer than we've been sitting around writing (/ doing math / other mainly intellectual activity), and thus one is significantly more natural than the other given our history. The human body seems designed to throw spears / rocks / balls. The necessary mental faculties for writing a poem seem more complicated than those needed for doing sports. The proportion of good athletes to good writers.

I'd love to be corrected on this if the opposite is true, that becoming a good athlete is just as difficult as or more difficult than becoming a good writer. I'm just not seeing it.

Writing is just another form of communication. Be it grunting noises, speech, or song, it has been in development for a very, very long time.

I won't comment on the difficulty of becoming a good athlete to that of being a good writer because it really is like comparing apples to oranges. That being said, becoming a good athlete can be incredibly tough both physically, and mentally.

Take a relatively simple sport like running. You will find a huge variation in the efficiency of joggers, even though it is a "natural" motion for the body. This is not even taking into account training, or nutrition. In fact, there are actually people who study the science of running:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrOgDCZ4GUo

The best athletes have an improvisational quality--they're not just repeating techniques but applying the right technique to the given tactical situation in creative and unanticipated ways.

I must still disagree: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

This is like people calling skills "artistry."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com