question of talent

NextLevel wrote: With identical twins raised apart, the surprise is that they are more similar mentally than one would predict if the influence of environment was as strong as most people would claim.  And that I think is the bottom line.  People talk around it in all sorts of ways, but when you can predict criminal behavior in a twin with high probability from the behavior of one twin, it tells you something.

AndySmith,

Such Humean skepticism is never practiced by anyone consistently so there is no point debating it. If we had rigorously test all our claims, we would be living in stasis. The flipside of someone being less talented shows up in the analytical fields when they wonder why they aren't capable of things other people do with less effort. Sometimes, its an unbridgeable gap in capability. A decision can be made to continue trying on the basis of blank slate notions of ability or absolute malleability of experience (as dangerous). Sometimes, accepting that one ISS not talented enough to do something but is talented enough to do something else can be liberating and career changing in a great way. It's not all gloom and doom.

NextLevel wrote: AndySmith, Such Humean skepticism is never practiced by anyone consistently so there is no point debating it. If we had rigorously test all our claims, we would be living in stasis. The flipside of someone being less talented shows up in the analytical fields when they wonder why they aren't capable of things other people do with less effort. Sometimes, its an unbridgeable gap in capability. A decision can be made to continue trying on the basis of blank slate notions of ability or absolute malleability of experience (as dangerous). Sometimes, accepting that one ISS not talented enough to do something but is talented enough to do something else can be liberating and career changing in a great way. It's not all gloom and doom.

Speedplay wrote: AndySmith wrote: Speedplay wrote: No, I havent read everything in this tread, but to me, its plain obvious that talent does exist. Look at youngsters Fan, Im sure he have had plenty of quality practice that have helped him reach the top. Im Also sure that he havent been the only one from that generation who have got that kind of practice. In fact, Im fairly confident that in China alone, 100 others have been given the same practice. Fan have become better then those due to his talent, not due to some magic formula for practice. Then there is the question about lack of talent. Obviously, this Also exists, but it is my firm belief that ANYONE can reach at least 2000 utsatt with good practice, assuming no disabilities. At the end of the day, table tennis is a game where training beats talent, but to reach the top, you need both. See, here we go.  Plainly obvious that talent exists, but I presume totally unaware of fan's development and background.  Totally convinced, without the need to actually find out what went on and how things came to be. It's not that talent doesn't exist, it's that people want to apply the label without any idea of what went on.  This is the power of the talent myth. Speedplay - wouldn't you rather KNOW why fan is so skilled, rather than guessing and calling it talent?  Or if you are so sure it's talent, explain what is at work with fan and provide evidence. What and how things came to be? Guessing here, since Im not really involved in the Chinese table tennis development, but I suspect that he got the same practice as everyone else in his group, he embraced the practice better then the rest, so he became better. To me, that is talent. The talent myth doesnt exist, cause talent isnt a myth but a fact. We are all different and some of us are better suited for math, other for TT. If you deny talent, then, I assume that you can pick 100 random kids, give them the same training and they will al be at the same level? I refuse to believe that, simply because some people have more talent then others. Talent alone wont get you long, but you do need talent to reach the top, or else everyone who practices hard enough would be top players. Would I rather know whats going on with Fan? I do think I have a pretty good idea, he have been given the best available practice to fulfil his potential, like everyone else in the Chinese national team. I mean, it could be that his brain is slihtly faster that gives him the edge, it could be that his vision is slightly better or that his muscles contracts themself fast, it really doesnt matter, cause there is obviously something that makes him more talented, or suited if you like, then the rest.

"It is hard to fill a cup that is already full..."

Quote: Moat - from Avatar (Film)....

AndySmith wrote: Some, or all, of that COULD be true.  Or fan could be the result of a new, innovative training technique.  Or a series of events in his youth could have given him an unusual edge in terms of skill-based training. And yet, even what I suggest could be true, you are absolutely sure that this isn't right and he has some magical genetic woo.  Which still could be true!  Don't get me wrong, fan could well be some amazing genetic outlier. But without bothering to check, how could you (or I) know? Now, this may seem like neither of us has any better case than the other, which is also right!  But think about the repercussions of our opposing theories. You say fan has talent, could be vision, could be muscles.  No need to go any further, right?  It's something, and here are some possibilities, so that's that.  It's obvious! I say - maybe it's something else, something interesting in his history or training practice.  I always keep the door open to innovation, so something new and experimental could have been at work during his development.  A new coach, trying new things.  All guesswork, but so is your opinion (without testing fan in some way, which you could do, just as I could perhaps look into his history). Now, we are both training a 16-year-old USA junior, on the verge of breaking into the national team.  Fan would obviously obliterate him, but he's doing well.  Do you think that fan is more talented?  Or would you have to look into the details as to how the skill difference came about?

Well, if your first assumption here, about some new and innovative training is the answer, then my question is, do you think he was the only one to test this? Wouldnt it be much more likely that this new training was tested in a group? So, why was it that Fan progressed?

The series of events you speak of, sure, he could have been called up to practice with the older kids early on, but, if this is the case, then the most likely reason he was called up was because he was best in his group, which leads us back to talent.

As for the 16 year old junior, no, I wouldnt say that Fan is necessarily more talented, because they have probably received very different training. With the same training, it is possible that the 16 year old US kid would destroy Fan.

But, Fan have not practiced alone, he have been in a group and in this group, he have excelled, which is why I claim him to be talented. Heck, his talent might even be that he endures hard training better then the rest, so he can train more, but its still done to talent.

I know there is a documentary about a gigantic Chinese training center for TT, with hundreds and hundreds of Chinese kids training together. From this center, they every year get 1-2 players who reach international level, while the rest are washed out. Believe me, the wash outs are most likely good to play in pretty much any other national team then the Chinese, but in this fierce competition, their talent wasnt enough. Of course we could argue what talent is, but thats another topic.

CraneStyle wrote: @ AndySmith - Your previous analogy is way off the mark... Maybe "Talent" is determined by how many Midichlorians people are born with...

AndySmith wrote: CraneStyle wrote: @ AndySmith - Your previous analogy is way off the mark... Maybe "Talent" is determined by how many Midichlorians people are born with... I have made so many, some definitely dodgier than others.  I lose track. Shame we can't ask George Lucas about talent.

Well...

"Everybody has talent and it's just a matter of moving around until you've discovered what it is. A talent is a combination of something you love a great deal and something you can lose yourself in -- something that you can start at 9 o'clock, look up from your work and it's 10 o'clock at night -- and also something that you have a talent, not a talent for, but skills that you have a natural ability to do very well. And usually those two things go together."

George Lucas

May the 4th be with you...


Edited by CraneStyle - 05/02/2015 at 5:11pm

AndySmith wrote: And I'm not at all standing in the way of making informed, knowledgeable decisions based on evidence.  And I'm not subscribing to the blank slate concept here at all.  I say that the real world is complex, and somewhere in the middle, as most people here seem to agree on.... the concept of "talent" isn't enough of a solid body of work to justify the importance it has in life.  It's a term which is overempowered, misleading, can be abused, and even when applied "correctly" is simply an almost meaningless high-level placeholder for the more useful physical things happening underneath.

As to point one.  Good.  Some things some of us are just born with have an impact on how well we are able to do certain things we may end up doing.  It is good you accept that.  And clearly there are many factors over and above that. 

As for point two, I don't see that it comes up all that often in the way you are describing it, to tell you the truth, in the case of table tennis where I live.  Someone gives money to a coach and they get coaching, and it is not like the coaches' time here is in such scarce supply that they need to make choices on who should get help and who shouldn't based on how talented they think their students are.  All it takes is money.  Here also, I think the coaches are pretty conscientious with everyone.  Maybe it is different in UK, but it would surprise me.  Of course not all coaches are good.

The kinds of judgments you are talking about come up in other areas where a limited number of spots are available for something and a lot of people want them.  For example here, admission to elite universities or selective graduate programs, or athletic scholarships or drafting by professional sports teams, being chosen to be on the CNT in table tennis, that sort of thing.  In those cases they have elaborate measurement schemes designed to identify the people they think are most likely to succeed, the most "talented" ones and the ones who will work the hardest.  No organization gets it right all the time.  Some of the mistakes that these groups make were laughable when you look back in time, but hindsight is always 20/20. 

AndySmith wrote: Baal wrote: As for point two, I don't see that it comes up all that often in the way you are describing it, to tell you the truth, in the case of table tennis where I live.  Again, perhaps I'm being too verbose without getting to the meat of the subject.  The second point is something I think happens in general life, in many situations, not just in a sporting context.  Used as an excuse by anyone struggling with developing a skill.  Used as a general catch-all excuse for middle-managers to justify selecting one employee for dismissal over another.  Used to prop up arrogance and belief in the skilled.  Even used to market and sell products. There seems to be a gut reaction people have when they see the skilled - wow, there's talent, right there.  There is media saturation of it - talented, gifted, blessed.  And yet how many times do people bother to check any of this out?  It's just assumed to be true, and it creates an us/them dynamic, which is unhealthy in many ways (as I've tried to discuss with real-world examples which I've actually experienced). Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that anyone can be the best at anything they randomly choose.  But if people are labelled as lacking The Talent (by people who probably can't accurately define what that talent even is), it's incredibly disenfranchising.  The learning curve may be different for each individual, but the danger is the idea that success at any level is impossible. I firmly believe that everyone (without a serious medical condition) should be able to pass high school maths.  But it's unnervingly common to hear from students that they don't have the maths talent (well, usually it's "the maths gene" or "maths brain" or "my parents couldn't do maths either").  And they really believe this.  Now, we're not talking about everyone reaching Hawking levels of ability, but high school maths?  They believe that people have gifts, and that people must therefore also lack gifts, so their struggle must be an indicator of a lack of said gift, from which there is no return.  It's the faulty logic of seeing success and attributing it solely to natural "talent". And the post above about the systems development isn't an analogy, it's a recounting of my real workplace experience.  This kind of thing happens a lot less these days because the older staff are much more likely to be using smartphones and touchscreen tablet these days, but go back 5 years and I'd get this to some degree every time a new system came in.  I don't expect these staff to be the new Bill Gates, but basic computer operation?  Possible in every case IMO.  But these people fundamentally believe that they were born without The Thing which lets them use a PC.

Andy,

It's easy to talk about what people should be able to do when you are not responsible for the results. As much as I wish everyone could pass high school math, I learned the hard way while teaching it that for some people, it wasn't worth the effort for them because they just felt helpless. And since you are not them, it is easy to say they should be able to do it. But there are level of math I struggle with as well. So why can't people struggle with lower levels of math? Because you said so? How is that different from saying they must be talented?

Edited by NextLevel - 05/02/2015 at 8:13pm

I improved when I used Bomb talent,,, so did that count?

AndySmith wrote: OK, great!  I'm glad you've said this, although my obvious trap was obvious.  Fan was in a group, but not in a group of identical people with identical backgrounds.  His physical conditioning could just be that he lived further from school than the others so he jogged in every day, or his family lived over a gym, or his dad wore a superhero costume and fought crime at the weekends and fan was his sidekick and the experience pumped him up more than the others, who were all bookworms and spent too long in the library studying biomechanics etc etc. Or what you said might be true. Again, we don't know until we look.  I'm not saying this is why fan is awesome, just offering other alternatives, and without looking we just don't know.

So, your obvious trap was for me to admit that Fan might not be the greatest table tennis talent of all times? great trap, only problem is, I dont recall saying he was.

If you have seen the Chinese TT centers for practice, you will realize that what ever happens outside of those have very little effect on how good the players become. This guys all gets their hours done at an early stage and the ones with most talent progress the furthest.

You seem determined to prove that talent isnt a factor and I disagree with that. Im not saying that talent is the only factor, even folks with very little natural talent can become good players with enough training.

Also, I like how you want me, and others, to prove what talent actually is, but you yourself lack proofs that talent doesnt exsist.

We could always think outside the box and search for other answers, but, if it looks like a horse, walks like a horse and smells like a horse, then I see no point in calling it a zebra.

APW46 wrote: At the very top of the sport, the players have something extra, that is why they get there, below that, dedication wins over talent every time. An individual can get more dedicated easily, but nobody can get 'more talented' My personal view from experience is that reasonably often the players with more gifted touch progress quicker and are seen as 'talented' but if they lack dedication they are soon overtaken by the dedicated workers. If you get both you get a good player, then it comes down to other factors such as nationality, funding, mental strength, luck ( being around the right players/coaches) as to how far they go.

I would agree with this, but would add that people who are really finding it difficult because of some limitations they have get frustrated and move on to something else.

TTFrenzy wrote: waldner has stated, the he actually developed his infamous "feel" for the ball by experimenting all the time, even in matches. Its a fact that some people have natural gift of what we call  soft and flexible wrist  compared to others...

And this pretty much sums up everything that is driving Andy (and me) insane.

TT is unique since physical strength is not a requirement to play at a decent hobby skill level with the proper technique training. Look at the trained children.