Talent...a myth?

[Ossyrules]

Care to provide an example of an elite person in their field...or just keep pretending you have the ability to disprove the theory

Foremans genetics provide him with heavy hands

Tysons genetics provided him with explosive fast power

Roy Jones genetics provide him with extraordinary reflexes, speed and mega plyometric type power

Amir Khans genetics provided him with electric hand speed

I could go on if needed?

Understand that talent without hard work to realise it sees talent go unfulfilled. These people haven't got where they are without great trainers and guidance and the appetite to push themselves massively.

Then there are those that have the ability to remain calm and calculating under intense situations. Some people cannot do that.

Usain bolt apart, the talent and dedication between 8 finalists in a 100m sprint final is very little, 1% difference. The difference between a guy who will run 9.9 and win and the other who is running 10.1 and finishing down the field is mental. The ability to remain calm, use nerves positively, focus etc.

There's a lot of stuff you're trying to say isn't natural like reflexes etc. I 100% do not believe that. That is utter shite in my book

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

No idea who that is don't follow table tennis. What you say doesn't alter my views

Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others. You can train hard and work on it and be the best you can, but not everyone can reach that level

[samdance]

Foremans genetics provide him with heavy hands

Tysons genetics provided him with explosive fast power

Roy Jones genetics provide him with extraordinary reflexes, speed and mega plyometric type power

Amir Khans genetics provided him with electric hand speed

I could go on if needed?

Understand that talent without hard work to realise it sees talent go unfulfilled. These people haven't got where they are without great trainers and guidance and the appetite to push themselves massively.

Then there are those that have the ability to remain calm and calculating under intense situations. Some people cannot do that.

Usain bolt apart, the talent and dedication between 8 finalists in a 100m sprint final is very little, 1% difference. The difference between a guy who will run 9.9 and win and the other who is running 10.1 and finishing down the field is mental. The ability to remain calm, use nerves positively, focus etc.

There's a lot of stuff you're trying to say isn't natural like reflexes etc. I 100% do not believe that. That is utter shite in my book

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

No idea who that is don't follow table tennis. What you say doesn't alter my views

Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others. You can train hard and work on it and be the best you can, but not everyone can reach that level

Give the book a read, there's lots of other cracking examples and it might alter your view or at least provoke doubt.
In regards to how people are wired etc, I wholeheartedly disagree and am very glad I do, if it was up to you then, hiring sports psychologists is a waste of time.

[Ossyrules]

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

No idea who that is don't follow table tennis. What you say doesn't alter my views

Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others. You can train hard and work on it and be the best you can, but not everyone can reach that level

Give the book a read, there's lots of other cracking examples and it might alter your view or at least provoke doubt.
In regards to how people are wired etc, I wholeheartedly disagree and am very glad I do, if it was up to you then, hiring sports psychologists is a waste of time.

I haven't said that or implied it. I'm not implying that you've either got it or you haven't

[punchoutsb]

Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

I love the ideas of deliberate practice, 10,000 hours, etc.

The problem is that people can't seem to differentiate between *skill* and *ability*. Depending on the source, the terms skill and ability may differ but that's what I'll call it here.

A skill is learned, and no one is born with superior skill to anyone else because we are not born with skills. We learn skills.

Ability can also be heavily influenced by directed practice, but ability is also a culmination of physical and genetic factors. If ability levels were not different among individuals then everyone with zero experience in a specific skill would be the same: every child in gym class would run a race at the same speed, everyone would start with the same strength levels, etc etc etc. Obviously that's not true.

If you are born with specific features and certain propensities for abilities than you may pick up a skill faster than others, and are then called a natural or a genius or whatever. It's the inability to distinguish between specific skills and innate abilities that confuse people on this. Hard work is required for greatness, but greatness isn't available to everyone.

[samdance]

No idea who that is don't follow table tennis. What you say doesn't alter my views

Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others. You can train hard and work on it and be the best you can, but not everyone can reach that level

Give the book a read, there's lots of other cracking examples and it might alter your view or at least provoke doubt.
In regards to how people are wired etc, I wholeheartedly disagree and am very glad I do, if it was up to you then, hiring sports psychologists is a waste of time.

I haven't said that or implied it. I'm not implying that you've either got it or you haven't

You've confused me then you stated "Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others."
????

[Ossyrules]

Give the book a read, there's lots of other cracking examples and it might alter your view or at least provoke doubt.
In regards to how people are wired etc, I wholeheartedly disagree and am very glad I do, if it was up to you then, hiring sports psychologists is a waste of time.

I haven't said that or implied it. I'm not implying that you've either got it or you haven't

You've confused me then you stated "Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others."
????

Read the bit about 100m sprinters in my earlier post

A gap can be partially bridged in my opinion, in the mental aspect, through psychology etc, but some athletes have this ability still to give them an edge in this area

[samdance]

I haven't said that or implied it. I'm not implying that you've either got it or you haven't

You've confused me then you stated "Disagree about the mental part as well, that is another gift that some are wired up with that separates them from others."
????

Read the bit about 100m sprinters in my earlier post

A gap can be partially bridged in my opinion, in the mental aspect, through psychology etc, but some athletes have this ability still to give them an edge in this area

I do agree with you that genetics is a factor but only in style of boxer.
In a sport as complex as boxing the sheer amount of skills required to learn far outweighs any of the genetics as they can also be improved and sharpened

[punchoutsb]

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

This is only a half story--most people would argue (whether right or wrong) that the English Table Tennis Team would consist of naturally talented individuals. Being the slowest of the best in the world (in a non-sport specific task nonetheless) doesn't prove that reflexes are a purely learned skill.

A more accurate test of "natural ability" would be to compare high level table tennis players with regular people in a non-sport specific reaction task. This was done in a study I reviewed once when writing on just this topic and the results were very clearly in favor of the table tennis players. Again, this was a non-sport specific task so the practice of table tennis players should not technically interfere, and the controls were matched for age and size.

[samdance]

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

This is only a half story--most people would argue (whether right or wrong) that the English Table Tennis Team would consist of naturally talented individuals. Being the slowest of the best in the world (in a non-sport specific task nonetheless) doesn't prove that reflexes are a purely learned skill.

A more accurate test of "natural ability" would be to compare high level table tennis players with regular people in a non-sport specific reaction task. This was done in a study I reviewed once when writing on just this topic and the results were very clearly in favor of the table tennis players. Again, this was a non-sport specific task so the practice of table tennis players should not technically interfere, and the controls were matched for age and size.

That's interesting, however in regards to my story, Syed talks about the fact that almost all the best juniors in the country came from the same school, he states that their PE teacher was an outstanding table tennis coach/player and they had access to a 24hr practice hall which they all had a set of keys to.

In regards to the study you reviewed, I wonder if they considered the reason the players were higher was because they played table tennis and had trained their reactions to be quicker.

[punchoutsb]

Ok so one example in the book regarding reflexes is that Desmond Douglas an English table tennis player was known to have godlike reflexes in the world of table tennis, the whole England team were sent to a sports science facility where they all had their reflexes measured using an exercise non-related to table tennis. The results showed Desmond Douglas had the slowest reflexes, my point is that it had to have been learned.
Also staying calm in situations of course can be learned, and comes from experience.

This is only a half story--most people would argue (whether right or wrong) that the English Table Tennis Team would consist of naturally talented individuals. Being the slowest of the best in the world (in a non-sport specific task nonetheless) doesn't prove that reflexes are a purely learned skill.

A more accurate test of "natural ability" would be to compare high level table tennis players with regular people in a non-sport specific reaction task. This was done in a study I reviewed once when writing on just this topic and the results were very clearly in favor of the table tennis players. Again, this was a non-sport specific task so the practice of table tennis players should not technically interfere, and the controls were matched for age and size.

That's interesting, however in regards to my story, Syed talks about the fact that almost all the best juniors in the country came from the same school, he states that their PE teacher was an outstanding table tennis coach/player and they had access to a 24hr practice hall which they all had a set of keys to.

In regards to the study you reviewed, I wonder if they considered the reason the players were higher was because they played table tennis and had trained their reactions to be quicker.

Having access to high level coaching young is obviously a factor, but if it came down to practice and practice alone then everyone who went to that school would have come out among the best.

As to the study, the TT players trained their reactions to be quicker in their sports specific tasks--in terms of the test given they were just as novice at the control. I think the stronger inference to be made is that they were naturally gifted with faster reaction times, which gave them more success early in table tennis, which caused them to stick with the sport.

One only needs to go to any novice youth sports event to see that there is more to success then hard work and practice.

[samdance]

This is only a half story--most people would argue (whether right or wrong) that the English Table Tennis Team would consist of naturally talented individuals. Being the slowest of the best in the world (in a non-sport specific task nonetheless) doesn't prove that reflexes are a purely learned skill.

A more accurate test of "natural ability" would be to compare high level table tennis players with regular people in a non-sport specific reaction task. This was done in a study I reviewed once when writing on just this topic and the results were very clearly in favor of the table tennis players. Again, this was a non-sport specific task so the practice of table tennis players should not technically interfere, and the controls were matched for age and size.

That's interesting, however in regards to my story, Syed talks about the fact that almost all the best juniors in the country came from the same school, he states that their PE teacher was an outstanding table tennis coach/player and they had access to a 24hr practice hall which they all had a set of keys to.

In regards to the study you reviewed, I wonder if they considered the reason the players were higher was because they played table tennis and had trained their reactions to be quicker.

Having access to high level coaching young is obviously a factor, but if it came down to practice and practice alone then everyone who went to that school would have come out among the best.

As to the study, the TT players trained their reactions to be quicker in their sports specific tasks--in terms of the test given they were just as novice at the control. I think the stronger inference to be made is that they were naturally gifted with faster reaction times, which gave them more success early in table tennis, which caused them to stick with the sport.

One only needs to go to any novice youth sports event to see that there is more to success then hard work and practice.

No not everyone in the school because you are ignoring other factors like enjoyment and other activities that prevented some from practicing as much or as hard.

That's a great point in that their superior reactions early on caused them to possibly enjoy it more as they maybe had a slight edge over other players causing them to continue with the sport.

I played table tennis from a young age with my twin brother and we both got to a very high standard as juniors. Our parents were told by other parents that we had natural gifts and talent. What they failed to realise is that while other juniors had to wait for scheduled practice to play other players of the same or better standard, we were practicing against each other a lot in our shed at home.
My point is when you watch kids and see some more natural than others, you are not seeing everything behind the scenes.

If 1 child practices 30 minutes more than another a day, after a month that's say 15 hours more practice, put that into a year and you start to see why some kids appear more natural than others

[punchoutsb]

No not everyone in the school because you are ignoring other factors like enjoyment and other activities that prevented some from practicing as much or as hard.

That's a great point in that their superior reactions early on caused them to possibly enjoy it more as they maybe had a slight edge over other players causing them to continue with the sport.

I played table tennis from a young age with my twin brother and we both got to a very high standard as juniors. Our parents were told by other parents that we had natural gifts and talent. What they failed to realise is that while other juniors had to wait for scheduled practice to play other players of the same or better standard, we were practicing against each other a lot in our shed at home.
My point is when you watch kids and see some more natural than others, you are not seeing everything behind the scenes.

If 1 child practices 30 minutes more than another a day, after a month that's say 15 hours more practice, put that into a year and you start to see why some kids appear more natural than others

I understand your point, but at any children's PE class in the world there will be top and bottom of performers. Do you really believe that every top performer in every PE class in the world is practicing kickball at home for hours per day? And you will also find that those top performers are typically the top performers in every game played. They have more physical ability, or their physical abilities are matched better to the skills they are supposed to learn.

They actually recently did a meta-analysis of almost 100 studies on practice and performance and the results showed that deliberate practice led to an 18% variance in sport performance. Slightly more for instrumental performance and games (since the rules don't change) and way less for things like education and business. As to your personal experience, it is quite obvious that your skill would be higher than others your age because you practiced more. But skill and ability are different. You must have had good reflexes, more fast twitch muscle fibers, and good vision to name a few--I think most scientists would agree you were likely born with a higher number of these than other kids who were less successful at table tennis. I think a statement from one of the authors of the above mentioned meta-analysis puts it best: ""There is no doubt that deliberate practice is important, from both a statistical and a theoretical perspective. It is just less important than has been argued."

[samdance]

No not everyone in the school because you are ignoring other factors like enjoyment and other activities that prevented some from practicing as much or as hard.

That's a great point in that their superior reactions early on caused them to possibly enjoy it more as they maybe had a slight edge over other players causing them to continue with the sport.

I played table tennis from a young age with my twin brother and we both got to a very high standard as juniors. Our parents were told by other parents that we had natural gifts and talent. What they failed to realise is that while other juniors had to wait for scheduled practice to play other players of the same or better standard, we were practicing against each other a lot in our shed at home.
My point is when you watch kids and see some more natural than others, you are not seeing everything behind the scenes.

If 1 child practices 30 minutes more than another a day, after a month that's say 15 hours more practice, put that into a year and you start to see why some kids appear more natural than others

I understand your point, but at any children's PE class in the world there will be top and bottom of performers. Do you really believe that every top performer in every PE class in the world is practicing kickball at home for hours per day? And you will also find that those top performers are typically the top performers in every game played. They have more physical ability, or their physical abilities are matched better to the skills they are supposed to learn.

They actually recently did a meta-analysis of almost 100 studies on practice and performance and the results showed that deliberate practice led to an 18% variance in sport performance. Slightly more for instrumental performance and games (since the rules don't change) and way less for things like education and business. As to your personal experience, it is quite obvious that your skill would be higher than others your age because you practiced more. But skill and ability are different. You must have had good reflexes, more fast twitch muscle fibers, and good vision to name a few--I think most scientists would agree you were likely born with a higher number of these than other kids who were less successful at table tennis. I think a statement from one of the authors of the above mentioned meta-analysis puts it best: ""There is no doubt that deliberate practice is important, from both a statistical and a theoretical perspective. It is just less important than has been argued."

Yeah all good points, after doing a lot of reading on this, it made me question everything as I did believe I was naturally talented.
I then thought about as far back as I can remember my twin and I would wrestle and play fight way before table tennis. That's got to improve strength, balance, coordination etc.
Also most kids from sporty families are put into a discipline at an early age whether that be karate, tennis or any other outside school activity which all adds advantages in p.e lessons etc

[Tarkus]

Anyone thinking talent is irrelevant doesn't live on this planet.
Anyone thinking talent doesn't exist needs to be institutionalized.

[punchoutsb]

No not everyone in the school because you are ignoring other factors like enjoyment and other activities that prevented some from practicing as much or as hard.

That's a great point in that their superior reactions early on caused them to possibly enjoy it more as they maybe had a slight edge over other players causing them to continue with the sport.

I played table tennis from a young age with my twin brother and we both got to a very high standard as juniors. Our parents were told by other parents that we had natural gifts and talent. What they failed to realise is that while other juniors had to wait for scheduled practice to play other players of the same or better standard, we were practicing against each other a lot in our shed at home.
My point is when you watch kids and see some more natural than others, you are not seeing everything behind the scenes.

If 1 child practices 30 minutes more than another a day, after a month that's say 15 hours more practice, put that into a year and you start to see why some kids appear more natural than others

I understand your point, but at any children's PE class in the world there will be top and bottom of performers. Do you really believe that every top performer in every PE class in the world is practicing kickball at home for hours per day? And you will also find that those top performers are typically the top performers in every game played. They have more physical ability, or their physical abilities are matched better to the skills they are supposed to learn.

They actually recently did a meta-analysis of almost 100 studies on practice and performance and the results showed that deliberate practice led to an 18% variance in sport performance. Slightly more for instrumental performance and games (since the rules don't change) and way less for things like education and business. As to your personal experience, it is quite obvious that your skill would be higher than others your age because you practiced more. But skill and ability are different. You must have had good reflexes, more fast twitch muscle fibers, and good vision to name a few--I think most scientists would agree you were likely born with a higher number of these than other kids who were less successful at table tennis. I think a statement from one of the authors of the above mentioned meta-analysis puts it best: ""There is no doubt that deliberate practice is important, from both a statistical and a theoretical perspective. It is just less important than has been argued."

Yeah all good points, after doing a lot of reading on this, it made me question everything as I did believe I was naturally talented.
I then thought about as far back as I can remember my twin and I would wrestle and play fight way before table tennis. That's got to improve strength, balance, coordination etc.
Also most kids from sporty families are put into a discipline at an early age whether that be karate, tennis or any other outside school activity which all adds advantages in p.e lessons etc

You no doubt had natural abilities that pushed you to pursue things you were good at because of those natural abilities.

Anyone thinking talent is irrelevant doesn't live on this planet.
Anyone thinking talent doesn't exist needs to be institutionalized.

The deliberate practice model theory isn't that talent doesn't exist, it's that natural talent in it's commonly held definition doesn't exist and that it is created through deliberate practice.

[Tarkus]

The deliberate practice model theory isn't that talent doesn't exist, it's that natural talent in it's commonly held definition doesn't exist and that it is created through deliberate practice.

So, not that it doesn't exist but it doesn't exist. I see now.

[punchoutsb]

The deliberate practice model theory isn't that talent doesn't exist, it's that natural talent in it's commonly held definition doesn't exist and that it is created through deliberate practice.

So, not that it doesn't exist but it doesn't exist. I see now.

I'm not a proponent of the deliberate practice model, but in your case some deliberate practice at reading could help your comprehension.

[JAHamilton77]

You can't be born more "skilled" since skill is something that is developed, but you can have natural attributes that allow to better cultivate that skill and when combined with that skill can make it greater.

[RScarf1]

There are people who are born with the ability to do a particular sport better than others. I ran track in high school and competed against a few of the best runners in America. What separated them from me was their natural abilities, not work ethic. Hard work can make you improve, but not everyone who works hard and trains countless hours is going to be a world-class athlete. I was one of the best in my county, but I did not have the genetics to be as fast as the elite.

I'm talking about complex tasks not running in a straight line

Track is running in a circle. My point is that athletes in every sport need some natural ability in order to be world-class at it.

[ValMar]

Talent + Timing + Commitment + Relationships + Hard Work = Success!

....And a little bit of luck, of course....

.. I would also add proper environment to the above equation..and, of course, genetic predisposition (talent) being an essential part of it..

Yes !

[ValMar]

Anyone thinking talent is irrelevant doesn't live on this planet.
Anyone thinking talent doesn't exist needs to be institutionalized.

Ten points, Tarkus !

[gp.]

When you put Lionel Messi on a football field at 5, before he'd done any practice or training, I will guarantee that anyone watching said "Bloody hell, that little kid is good".

Of course, there may have been other little kids his age with as much innate ability who haven't become Messi. One might just have worked very hard indeed and ended up as Wayne Rooney. Another might have just worked an average amount and be playing for Leicester City. A couple might have not trained or worked hard at all and got no further than schoolboy trials, while another might have done nothing and be twenty-five stone now and unemployed.

So ability is nothing without training and work.

To suggest that anyone can become an elite level footballer by working hard is however patently absurd. I've played amateur rugby all my life because I have some ability for it. if I'd dedicated my entire life to it from an early age I might have got a few semi-pro games. If I'd dedicated my entire life to football from an early age, I would still be barely good enough for most people's Sunday league teams.

[gp.]

I played table tennis from a young age with my twin brother and we both got to a very high standard as juniors. Our parents were told by other parents that we had natural gifts and talent. What they failed to realise is that while other juniors had to wait for scheduled practice to play other players of the same or better standard, we were practicing against each other a lot in our shed at home.
My point is when you watch kids and see some more natural than others, you are not seeing everything behind the scenes.

If 1 child practices 30 minutes more than another a day, after a month that's say 15 hours more practice, put that into a year and you start to see why some kids appear more natural than others

So what stopped you going on to be the best in the world? Lack of training or lack of natural ability? I would suggest the latter. If you'd had the ability, you would have done the training.

[Tony1244]

It's crap. Some people are born with better balance, coordination, and strength, not to mention brains.

All these things can be somewhat improved by hard work, but nature has a role as well as nurture.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Everyone doesn't have an aptitude for everything. I used to be a pretty good golfer, 5 handicap. Never practiced. I recently went home for a trip and 3 of my friends who play weekly in a summer league asked me to play with them. The first tee was the first time I'd swing a club in 10 years, shot a 92 and smoked them all. If you suck at something, like me playing guitar, no amount of practice can overcome your suckness.