question of talent

AndySmith wrote: Baal wrote: There is a mountain of evidence for genetic variation in individuals of outbred species that makes it easier for some than others to acquire the ability to do certain things within a given length of time.  I can't say that it is has been formally studied in table tennis what those traits are, but then again Andy is arguing from other activities too, when it suits him.   Only to point out the over-generalisations that people are prone to make, I hope.  There is lots of evidence, as you rightly say.  But then people jump from that to the sure belief that it is in action everywhere, and it is profound.  It's happened in this thread about TT.  "It's probably the same in TT" isn't a sentiment which carries weight for me. Baal wrote: Andy, you write, "I'm criticising people who believe wholeheartedly in "talent", say that they can spot the lack of it, say that that lack is terminal and cannot be overcome.".  That's good.  Nobody who has commented on this thread would make all the arguments you are criticizing.  It's a caricature of what people here actually are saying.  That was aimed at people who operate in education, not at anyone here, so it's not a caricature of anyone here at all.  This is cherry-picking, even if it is accidental. I'll re-write to be more focused on people on this thread - "I'm criticising people who believe wholeheartedly in "talent", say that they can spot the definite existence of it, say that it is the definite reason why some elite TT players are better than others, or better than we ourselves can hope to become". And my point is that the thinking involved in the re-write LEADS to the thinking in the original statement.

I work in education (university).  I would never make that argument.  But if it's not aimed at anyone here, why did you throw out that straw man?

As for generalization, you are arguing about teachers in a thread on table tennis.  Talk about generalizing!  I am arguing about behavioral genetics, including things like identical twin studies, and a mountain of evidence.  It would certainly apply to table tennis.  Why would TT be different from any other complex task that has ever been studied?

Genetics is profound.  It is also not everything, far from it.  This may not carry much weight with you.  But it should.

Lol - it's not a straw man. That would be a deliberate misrepresention of someone else's position to support your own. Also, its not a generalisation, because that would be if I'd said all or most teachers do such and such. What it is, as I've already said, is my opinion based on personal experience.

What I was driving at was the concept that the notion that talent exists, and is profound, and doesn't need to be investigated, leads to the same thought process bring applied inappropriately in other areas of life, education being the example. Have I demonstrated a causal link between the two? No. But its my opinion, not presented as fact.

If you want to say that I presented it as fact, and then beat it down on that basis, then there's your example of a straw man.

AndySmith wrote: Lol - it's not a straw man. That would be a deliberate misrepresention of someone else's position to support your own.

Well, so you criticized an opinion that nobody here was actually stating because...... anyone? anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller? 

AndySmith wrote: Lestat wrote: We’re not able to measure a black hole, but we can observe its presence, and even speculate about the size of it. There’s no denying it exists. How is this talent business different? Black holes have an absolute mountain of supporting evidence.  They were predicted to exist well before they were discovered, can be "measured" (I'm not sure what you mean by measured in this context to be honest) in many ways via indirect observation, are quite predictable and respond consistently to experimental testing, and are modeled in detail with incredible accuracy.  It is a physical entity, albeit a strange one in comparison with the smaller-scale world we interact with.  There are still many open questions about black holes, and I don't know anyone who states with 100% certainty that they know everything about them, and all the effects they have.  Anyone who does is being dishonest, IMO. I suppose I can use black holes as an analogy though.  Pointing to a group of people and declaring "talent" is like pointing at a black hole and declaring that you 100% know what's inside. I'd rather not get into the religious aspects of things here.  It's already bad enough with the politics!

Lestat wrote: This is going well beyond splitting the hair in four. What exactly do you want in terms of evidence, a scientific paper? Is it not enough that any experienced coach who has worked long enough with juniors will tell you the same thing: given an equal amount of work, some juniors advance way faster than others? Do you imply they don't know what they're observing? Do you imply there might be other forces at play other than natural ability? Is their observation compromised because they weren't able to keep the environment sterile enough? Statistically speaking, you're the odd one out. I think it's pretty safe to call it a fact, unless you're moving the goal posts of the discussion beyond what anybody might call reasonable. Which you certainly do.

Baal wrote: There is a thing called burden of proof.  Where that burden lies is based on what is already known.  At this point the burden of proof would not be on those of us who say that some people can reach a particular level in TT a bit faster than other people because of some physical and/or cognitive traits they were lucky enough to be born with, and that the top handful of players in the world (in any sport) have many of the physical/cognitive traits that are really good for that sport.  Also, you can get really good at this sport by hard work and determination, in spite of this (but maybe not top 20 in the world).

Just curious - who wears glasses in the top 20 and why do they wear them?

Like I said earlier, when comparing identical twins, the genes are the same or almost the same so the environment tends to be critical. When comparing identical environments, the genes tend to be critical. When looking at the general population, there is always the influence of both and without any serious investigation, one can confidently postulate the impact of both.

People who sometimes deny the impact of genes are thinking about a narrow subset of the population such as club TT players as the general population. The general population is of course far larger than that! The general population includes some people who would have TT traits as well as people who could not get decent even with multiple hours. The top 20 would have lots of traits that help with TT and have them in greater abundance than the rest of the world on average.

For something as complex as TT, for any one trait, there would clearly be exceptions. And in fact, its quite possible that TT is complicated enough that the contribution of single traits is so small that the combination of all the traits is what matters. Ultimately, my point is that everything we know about human beings says that when something has been exposed to a population as large as China, a lot of the top players have genetic advantages.

Here is another one in addition to the glasses issue.  Is there anyone in the top 50 in the world taller than 6'5" (about average height for a shooting guard in the NBA)?  Or more than 220 lbs (on the small size for an NFL football player)?

Baal wrote: AndySmith wrote: If this is aimed at me, then it's another straw man I'm afraid, and another bit of conjecture added to the end (although you probably already know that). I would not call it a straw man.  Burden of proof would be on you given what we know about behavioral genetics to prove that talent does not exist, not the other way around.  I was pretty clear about identifying the things that I wrote that are speculation and those that are not.  So yes, the end of that last post was conjecture.

NextLevel wrote: Andy, the modern definition of talent is largely genetic advantage as well as maybe a few environmental influences on anatomy that persist long after after the individual is removed from where influences had their effect. The combination of nature meets nurture gives rise to a phenomenal individual.

OK, excellent. I'm trying to avoid using the term, or I'm using quotes, because I think there might be some confusion about the accepted definition too. But I'm all for that definition.

But Baal is missing my point. He wants to invent a point, and then provide evidence to disprove it. I'm sure he's nearly got me cornered though. But I am in no way denying the existence of genetic advantage in general.

NextLevel wrote: Well, one of the big debates is whether genes influence mental behavior. All the public sentiments says no, while all the cutting edge behavioral geneticists say yes. It's one of those things that people don't speak about in polite company for fear of reprisal. In fact, I am soon going to stop discussing this. It can be that hot even amongst friends.

Hmmm. Do you mean they run into taboo areas like racism?

It can be hard to find an environment where discussions can be totally abstract. Public forums are definitely unsafe. Behavioral geneticists would probably not find twitter a safe place, for example.

so, conclusion is, Andy knows that talent exists, but he doesnt like the word talent so he wants us all to stop using it.

To be honest, I fail to see his point or why the word upsets him. If we claimed that it was all about talent, then I could understand him, but we all know that talent alone means nothing. Hard work combined with talent can get you far. Hard work, without talent, still beats purely talent.

In the book about JO Waldner, his brother says that JO could try a new stroke in warm up and begin using it in the next match, while he himself needed to spend several hours working on a new stroke before it was ready to be used in matches. To me, that is a talent of JO. Was he born with it or did he get this from some strange events earlier on in his childhood? Doesnt matter, according to me, because its still a talent that JO had.

AndySmith wrote: No, it's a straw man because I'm not saying that genetic advantage (avoiding the use of talent) doesn't exist.  I'm not saying it.  It's there.  It exists as a factor in the world.  Stop saying that I'm saying that it  doesn't exist, or you'll need a shed in your garden for your straw men. Stop it. Stop.

OK.  Progress.  So what is this all about then?  Because at this point I fail to see much of a point that you are making.  Except, perhaps, that this very true thing can also be misused for various reasons, by people who are lazy, incompetent or with bad intentions?  I said that far up-thread. 

Life isn't always fair that's for sure.

You guys can debate nature vs. nurture until the cows come home.  Defining the word "talent" may be even more of a futile effort to come to consensus.

Edited by geardaddy - 05/05/2015 at 3:15pm