Does "judging potential ability" make sense?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Bit of a stupid comparison. If I chuck 2 people into a pool, one has 2 legs and one has no legs, who will swim to the other end faster?

That is not someone having a natural ability, that is someone else having a defect/medical condition.

well if the person with no legs is a mermaid then..

[Menion]

well if the person with no legs is a mermaid then..

I like your thinking

[Ackter]

Bit of a stupid comparison. If I chuck 2 people into a pool, one has 2 legs and one has no legs, who will swim to the other end faster?

That is not someone having a natural ability, that is someone else having a defect/medical condition.

I didn't bring up that comparison. I just ran with it.

He's not improved because he has an over reliance on his pace. As well as this, he lacks the desire and bottle to become a top player. If his pace isn't working in a game, he withdraws inside himself and gives up.

But if nurture is everything, none of that should matter as it can be trained out of him.

[MSCCG]

OK I was going to stay on topic, so I contained myself but guess that's over.

Something that is missing from this argument is the definition of "Natural Ability". We have to define that first then argue for and against, then discard it or modify it.

I'm of the opinion that genetics plays only very predictable parts in a player's ability. We just can't be that different. The clue here is that players from any country can be successful, along with the fact that players good at one sport tend to be good at others, and players with good athletic ability tend to do well in all sports. Furthermore, there are certain differences between twins. Genetics is but a very very small part of what we are. Other aspects of biology are far more important. Biochemical conditions in utero for instance. An individual's hormonal balance and the rate that they develop is another example. "Natural" talent is probably purely physical. Your natural fitness, your build, your base reaction time and ability to perceive, such as vision and hearing. For me though, that is where nature ends. There may be arguments, but at least I've drawn a clear line here.

The rest of "talent" that you see, from the evidence I have, is for a lack of a better word, luck. The first part of Menion's post in post #59 is a very easy to understand, simplified version of the psychological view of behaviour. From the moment you are born, you are controlled by reinforcement and punishment contingencies, moderated through your cognitive abilities. This is not saying that everything can be trained. But everything can be learned. In behavioural psychology we are well aware that individuals have different sensitivities to reinforcement and added to that, inherent bias. But we are also clear in that we can consciously overcome these inherent differences, which means they are not fixed, so it wouldn't fall under the category of "Natural talent". Unfortunately, in most cases there may just not be enough motivation or time or incentive to overcome these things.

Now before you give me your anecdotal evidence, I have to say this: I don't know why you're such a genius at this or that, and I don't know why you're awesome at something but your twin brother isn't. I will say this though. Football is a game of arbitrary rules. If we look at it from an evolutionary point of view, there is no reason that a person would be born with traits that happen to make them a good football player, because the sport is socially constructed and highly variable between positions. However, sprinting fast does increase your fitness, and being good at perceiving music also increases fitness. If we change the rules of football, then the definition of "natural talent" for football would change. We can't have that, because then it wouldn't be constant. That wouldn't be a sound scientific theory.

Breaking it down, we have something like this, for example let's say you want to kick a ball accurately:

At the top we have genetics (the skeleton of your abilities) - your physical repertoire; i.e. you have a foot, plus a leg, plus muscles, etc. Some people have genes that code for more efficient use of energy, some have genes for a more flexible bone structure etc.

Just below genetics we have other biology that isn't directly inherited from parents: Biochemical makeup - hormonal differences, metabolic differences, unique neural pathway and the development of your physical self over time (i.e. you are born with perfect vision but straining your eye gives you eye problems, or you could develop diabetes for no reason). In the kicking example it would be the shape of your foot, whether you ever broke it, your bone structure that affects your posture, flexibility of your joints and the muscle you have built up doing other things.

Below that is all behavioural psychology. Punishment and reinforcement. For example, if you have kicked a ball before and it went in the direction you wanted to go, then you are more likely to kick the ball in the same way (by same way I mean your posture, your swing, the part of the foot you use to kick the ball, when you passed it, etc.) this is all modulated by your physical capabilities but even those can be learned and optimised, so they are not inherent. Here's where sensitivity and bias comes in. In cognitive theory, some people can form stronger connections when they learn something and that lets them remember it, store and use it more readily than others. This is the basis for bias and sensitivity. This is I guess the outcome of your physical capabilities, but it is possible to learn these, so they are not QUITE inherent either.

All in all, a kid being talented is most likely a matter of luck complementing their physical suitability, and if they come from a footballing family, more salience of reinforcements that follow anything football related. The unique and infinite combinations of these make us individuals, and also gives us all our special talents.

Well, this is as far as the evidence gives us. As far as talent is concerned, it's probably not so much talent as it is an inherent bias towards the right kinds of reinforcement.

[Menion]

But if nurture is everything, none of that should matter as it can be trained out of him.

I never said nuturing was everthing. Somethings can't be trained, I agree. What i've said is that people put too much stock in what is perceived natural ability (i.e. saying someone is a natural at finishing, dribbling, passing, tackling etc). What they think is a natural ability, is not. All technique can trained. What prevents a lot of people learning new things are mental blocks or learning the technique incorrectly and being unable to correct it. I do this myself, I can't hoof the ball at all. My foot braces for impact(curl my toes) because I don't want to kick the floor, even though I know I won't.

One big difference between Theo and Messi. Messi averaged around an extra 2000 (can't quite remember where I read this) hours a year with the ball at his feet in training to Theo. England will never have a player like Messi because we don't train players to be like that.

What does Messi have that can't be trained? A low centre of gravity, acceleration (can be trained to an extent), agility (once again, can be trained to an extent), vision and creativity and ontop of that, supreme confidence in his own ability.

You can become a good player without most of the above, you just can't become a great player.

[Ackter]

Then we don't have an argument at all, we both agree that you need both.

[Menion]

OK I was going to stay on topic, so I contained myself but guess that's over.

Something that is missing from this argument is the definition of "Natural Ability". We have to define that first then argue for and against, then discard it or modify it.

I'm of the opinion that genetics plays only very predictable parts in a player's ability. We just can't be that different. The clue here is that players from any country can be successful, along with the fact that players good at one sport tend to be good at others, and players with good athletic ability tend to do well in all sports. Furthermore, there are certain differences between twins. Genetics is but a very very small part of what we are. Other aspects of biology are far more important. Biochemical conditions in utero for instance. An individual's hormonal balance and the rate that they develop is another example. "Natural" talent is probably purely physical. Your natural fitness, your build, your base reaction time and ability to perceive, such as vision and hearing. For me though, that is where nature ends. There may be arguments, but at least I've drawn a clear line here.

The rest of "talent" that you see, from the evidence I have, is for a lack of a better word, luck. The first part of Menion's post in post #59 is a very easy to understand, simplified version of the psychological view of behaviour. From the moment you are born, you are controlled by reinforcement and punishment contingencies, moderated through your cognitive abilities. This is not saying that everything can be trained. But everything can be learned. In behavioural psychology we are well aware that individuals have different sensitivities to reinforcement and added to that, inherent bias. But we are also clear in that we can consciously overcome these inherent differences, which means they are not fixed, so it wouldn't fall under the category of "Natural talent". Unfortunately, in most cases there may just not be enough motivation or time or incentive to overcome these things.

Now before you give me your anecdotal evidence, I have to say this: I don't know why you're such a genius at this or that, and I don't know why you're awesome at something but your twin brother isn't. I will say this though. Football is a game of arbitrary rules. If we look at it from an evolutionary point of view, there is no reason that a person would be born with traits that happen to make them a good football player, because the sport is socially constructed and highly variable between positions. However, sprinting fast does increase your fitness, and being good at perceiving music also increases fitness. If we change the rules of football, then the definition of "natural talent" for football would change. We can't have that, because then it wouldn't be constant. That wouldn't be a sound scientific theory.

Breaking it down, we have something like this, for example let's say you want to kick a ball accurately:

At the top we have genetics (the skeleton of your abilities) - your physical repertoire; i.e. you have a foot, plus a leg, plus muscles, etc. Some people have genes that code for more efficient use of energy, some have genes for a more flexible bone structure etc.

Just below genetics we have other biology that isn't directly inherited from parents: Biochemical makeup - hormonal differences, metabolic differences, unique neural pathway and the development of your physical self over time (i.e. you are born with perfect vision but straining your eye gives you eye problems, or you could develop diabetes for no reason). In the kicking example it would be the shape of your foot, whether you ever broke it, your bone structure that affects your posture, flexibility of your joints and the muscle you have built up doing other things.

Below that is all behavioural psychology. Punishment and reinforcement. For example, if you have kicked a ball before and it went in the direction you wanted to go, then you are more likely to kick the ball in the same way (by same way I mean your posture, your swing, the part of the foot you use to kick the ball, when you passed it, etc.) this is all modulated by your physical capabilities but even those can be learned and optimised, so they are not inherent. Here's where sensitivity and bias comes in. In cognitive theory, some people can form stronger connections when they learn something and that lets them remember it, store and use it more readily than others. This is the basis for bias and sensitivity. This is I guess the outcome of your physical capabilities, but it is possible to learn these, so they are not QUITE inherent either.

All in all, a kid being talented is most likely a matter of luck complementing their physical suitability, and if they come from a footballing family, more salience of reinforcements that follow anything football related. The unique and infinite combinations of these make us individuals, and also gives us all our special talents.

Well, this is as far as the evidence gives us. As far as talent is concerned, it's probably not so much talent as it is an inherent bias towards the right kinds of reinforcement.

This is the best post in this thread, no questions asked.

Here's a philisophical question. Do people like to believe in natural ability so they can accept that they never had a chance to achieve what ever they wished to achieve, so by failing, they have done the best that they could have done?

[MSCCG]

This is the best post in this thread, no questions asked.

Here's a philosophical question. Do people like to believe in natural ability so they can accept that they never had a chance to achieve what ever they wished to achieve, so by failing, they have done the best that they could have done?

That would be logical except that people aren't very logical creatures when it comes to things like this. In fact, most people do believe that they would be better at something if they tried harder don't you think? I have an extreme dislike of going into psycho-analysis because I reckon that would be no different from giving personal opinion. But people are notoriously superstitious animals. We have an inherent ability to see things that aren't there, especially when we can see some kind of result but can't see what caused it.

Whether there is such a thing as "natural talent", you can see the evolutionary advantages of believing that you have a certain advantage over others in some capacity, which might make you more willing to develop that ability further and show off that skill to others. The ultimate reinforcers, blind faith and sex.

[Aytumious]

Does some of thinking in here apply to other fields? Can the janitor down the street with an IQ of 85 become the next Einstein if he works really hard?

This thread made me think of this former NFL player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Marinovich

[MSCCG]

Does some of thinking in here apply to other fields? Can the janitor down the street with an IQ of 85 become the next Einstein if he works really hard?

This thread made me think of this former NFL player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Marinovich

Probably not. He's a janitor.