Comment by PM_Tech | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PM_Tech | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That is a silly example to the point that it is hard to relate to my original comment.

100metres has a bias towards fast people? What does that mean?

I wager if two males born on the same day on opposite ends of the earth trained 8 hours per day to run the 100 metres eating exactly the same diet and following the same training regime to the same intensity they would post almost identical 100 metres results.

The difference comes from the application of focussed practice. It is the mental intensity through which you train.

Jack Nicklaus famously said he has never just "hit a ball" in his life. Every single stroke of every single session was a genuine attempt to accomplish a defined goal. Every shot analysed. That is why he is arguably the greatest (or second greatest golfer) of all time. 99% of golfers just hit the ball.

Schwarzenegger pioneered the idea that you can literally will your muscles to grow larger by thinking about them tearing and rebuilding. Subsequently proven almost three decades after he was laughed at. [1]

Natural talent is the witch doctor name we give to those who practise harder, longer and better than we do. Syed also subsequently disproves the idea of Kenyan runners as champion long distance athletes. Another cognitive dissonance.

[1] http://docsfitnesstips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/can-thinking-a... (Ignore the web address, it is the academic study he discusses and links to).

"That is a silly example to the point that it is hard to relate to my original comment."

It is a comment on a comment to your comment, so it need not relate strongly to it.

"100metres has a bias towards fast people? What does that mean?"

It is analogous to the remark that basketball has a bias towards height, and IMO apt, because your claim was about any sport.

"I wager if two males born on the same day on opposite ends of the earth trained 8 hours per day to run the 100 metres eating exactly the same diet and following the same training regime to the same intensity they would post almost identical 100 metres results."

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, that is extremist towards nurture, to such an extent that I haven't heard it before, and find it hard to believe that anybody would hold that a view that extremist. One of those men might have been born without legs, with cystic fibrosis, or just with genes that predispose him towards long distance running rather than sprinting. And yes, those Kenyan runners may not have a genetic advantage in long distance running over other lightly built athletes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22634972), but they surely have one over, say, Samoan men or pygmies.

In a highly competitive sport, you need both talent, hard work and a good environment for training (food, trainers, gym, etc) to become exceptional. You can compensate talent with hard work or a good training environment, and some do, but even for those, having more talent would (all other things being equal) make them even better.

Again, you are misunderstanding - encapsulated with the statement you wrote;

"In a highly competitive sport, you need both talent..."

There is no such thing as talent.

This is where our arguments are diverging. Disproving talents shows that anyone in possession of the minimum required attributes (legs, eyes etc) can become World Class at a sport given optimum training conditions and luck.

Claiming that an Olympic sprinter is more naturally talented than someone born without legs is absurd and a hijacking of the word talent beyond all legitimate understanding.

The argument is not about Heavyweight Boxer versus Featherweight. It is about can Person A become a world class boxer at all? The answer is yes, they can with the correct training, mindset and luck.

To argue otherwise is not consistent with scientific research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com