m.g - Actually twelvegage makes an excellent point in regard to the whole "natural talent" concept. I tend to agree with him.
I've read many of the books mentioned. The biggest influence for me in this area is a researcher named Ander Ericson whose research provided the foundation for several of the books mentioned.
People who are so called "naturally talented" are generally individuals who have put in the most time developing that skill in many cases through several different and similar activities.
While I do agree with Shen that the really talented individuals in Bjj don't have to "intellectualize" Bjj in order to be good at it. I don't agree with him that their ability is natural. What I believe is such individuals likely developed that physical ability to be good at something like Bjj through several years of participating in a variety of sports and physical activities starting from their youth.
Again, Bjj is essentially nothing more than a physical activity or something one does with ones body. The more control, awareness and ability to effectively and efficiently move one's own body the easier and faster one is able to not only learn new and different physical activities/skills but also adapt, adjust and improvise with those physical activities/skills.
I've never met a person who picked up Bjj fairly quickly who wasn't already good at other sports/physical activities. Mastering physical activities/sports prepares one to learn more physical activities/sports.
This is very interesting and I completely agree as I can mention another anecdote about my naturally athletic friend which amazes me even more than his prowess in BJJ.
The guy learned to surf in 6 months!!! I mean hes no Andy Irons but after just a year of surfing hes catching waves at will in the lineup and cutting on the waves....that to me is ridiculous
Surfing IMO has a much steeper learning curve than Jiu Jitsu as its taken me about 5 years doing it to become comfortable.
There IS such a thing as natural talent, and it is hardwired. Does it mean all will take advantage, train hard, etc? No. Only a fraction will. But there are some people for example who can learn complex math, or "Get it", miles ahead of those who struggle. Not all, but most.
Do you think renowned mathematicians all were below average or average learners of syubpar intelligence who just worked harder and smarter? No, of course not for most Most had an innate ability to concpetualize mathematical thought at a higher level and higher rate.
Do you think that some bidoes are more (or less) adept at performing certain movements?
The reality of life is that there some people who have a greater natural potential with certain things and activites, can grasp things, organize knowledge, synthesize concepts and perform physical tasks better than others due without even trying.
Of course these books are correct, that talent needs training and dedication.
So called "natural" talent is hard to prove. Most of the time so called "natural" is presumed to have "always" existed in people who demostrate extraordinary abilities. Most people just look at the end product and make an assumption as to how it got that why.
Take for example you analogy about renowned mathematicians. You've automatically assume these renowned mathematician had an innate ability for mathematics and that this ability was already at a high level. You haven't done any type of test to prove whether this so called innate ability even exist let alone exist in any individual. You're just automatically making that assumption.
You are right. But I DO know a couple of math guys. One was tested at age 3. To put in it understandable terms, one was operating at a grade 2 level without 'training;, and by grade 2 was doing grade5/6 material. He jumped 2 grades. Remarkably, his English writing was and is terrible. lol He ended up doing a PHD right out of BSc.
The other guy wasa guy i went to P.S. and H.S. with. Tested as extremely gifted at a very young age. By age eight, was doing grade 9 math and English curriculum. Mid grade 5, he was put into highschool grade 9, and accelerated from there. Just a frigging genius right from birth. Last I heard, he was a brilliant logician somewhere in US.
Finally, a guy that is married to a colleague, was exceptional from birth. His parents were uneducated due to war, etc., but father was really smart. They knew from a young preschool age that he was miles ahead. Became an area chess champ in his age bracket after playing less than a year, and did again in highschool.
Hardly studied, almost blew his intelligence on mindless things and drinking. Ended up doing 2 phds in science and math and some post doc thing i don'tunderstand, and co-authored a university textbook.According to a guy in the same field, this guy is almost one of a kind in a part icular area.
Now, it IS hard to prove, that is is genetic. But when it is noticed at 1 to 2 years of age, it is hard not to consider it.
Now does this mean most people who "excel", are all geniuses? No. Most put the time in, mixed with focused training, dedication, and persistance and come out at expert level.
Its also easy to assume that a gifted/talented person just worked hard and wasn't born with their "ability".
We aint equal, and we're never going to be equal. You can tell me that i can will myself to be flexible like a contortionist till you're blue in the face and it won't change anything. Some guy/girl out there will be born with that ability while i'm stuck since childhood not being able to touch my toes for my entire life.
Explain savants. That's just hard work? Lol.. doubtful.
Athletics and physical endeavors hard work and dedication do enhance, but there are limits.
^^ Well let's take the contortionist example. We have all seen how flexible babies are. Now if a parent were to work with the baby at an extremely young age to ensure the kid does not lose its flexibility and continue to work with the kid until adulthood. Then when the kid grows up it may be likely or possible that that person will have the same abilities as a contortionist.
I don't believe neither m.g. nor I are saying that anyone can do anything. I think what we are trying to say is what some are considering natural talent could be early nurturing in that field.
I don't believe I have ever seen a baby that wasn't flexible. So that would put all of us on the same plane as a contortionist at one point in our lives. It's what we do from then on that shapes us.
^^^ true...however, take two babies and nurture them the same. in all likelihood one will be more flexible. because ppl are NOT all the same. every one is an individual and because of this different ppl will be able to do things differently. this leads to the natural conclusion that some ppl have more "gifts" some have less. retarded ppl, no matter how hard working cannot reach the same level of function that I can no matter how early they are "nurtured" intellectually or physically. therefore the natural following fact is that there are ppl that no matter how hard I work I cannot match functionally, no matter how early I am nurtured. the fact that this is even being discussed is a symptomatic of the idea in this country that mediocrity is not only ok, but expected. "everyone is the same" I have a friend who is a special ed teacher who has parents with children with iqs so low they literally shit themselves in class who believe that their kids can get into harvard. this is crazy!! these kids are not the same as other kids! no matter how they are nurtured, or how hard they work. it is fact. the "average" bjj player if they trained twice as hard as roger gracie or marcelo garcia would never be as good as them, no matter how they are nurtured. science?? not exactly, though logical, but it is ridiculous to say that there can be a small percentage of ppl who are abnormally retarded and not a small percentage of ppl who are abnormally gifted. those who think that they could ever have been nurtured, trained, dedicated to be as good as the top % are merely deluding themselves, unable to admit they themselves are only average.
I have to disagree. Without getting into politics I think you are seeing this conversation wrong. You stated:
"the fact that this is even being discussed is a symptomatic of the idea in this country that mediocrity is not only ok, but expected. "everyone is the same""
I see it as the antagonist of this statement. I'm saying that you should expect more of yourself and not give yourself the excuse that other people's successes happen because of natural talent or blessings. That we are all capable of good things it, but it takes hard work. And in some cases it’s a life long effort.
I'm saying that you should expect more of yourself and not give yourself the excuse that other people's successes happen because of natural talent or blessings. That we are all capable of good things it, but it takes hard work. And in some cases it’s a life long effort.
That is my thought exactly.
I abhor the people that sell products, however, that wittle down and dismiss talent or natural ability in any endeavor. As if we're all equal and anyone can be just like anyone else if they just work hard. Its motivational, but unrealistic.
I think talent and abilty should be continually developed and worked on by those who have it, and it should be commended and admired by those that don't when it falls within their area of interest.
Yes, even in your latest analogies "genetics" or so called "natural" abilities is hard to prove. The reason why would be: there are too many variables/possibilities in those analogies which haven't been eliminated in order to definitely say "genetics" or "natural" abilities was the sole or, at least, the main reason for the skill and success of those individuals in your analogy.
Again it would NOT be scientific to just say "genetics" or "natural" ability is the reason for the skill/success of some without some type of objective test.
It is just to common these days to say genetics/natural ability as the reason for extraordinary ability. Genetics/natural ability has been a default answer when there seemingly isn't another answer.
It is interesting how some people are more than willing to accept unproveable answers in some things but not in other things.
m.g. as long as you accept that there is no science behind the theory that there is no genitics and natural ability/it does not play a sole role. I can accept your statement.
I personally can't say genetics/natural ability doesn't play a role. And I don't think the science behind the many books mentioned in this thread say that genetics/natural ability don't play a role either. What they do say is the degree to which genetic/natural ability plays may not be as high as some people think. AND often genetic/natural ability becomes a default answer when the answer could be something else such as the PLACEBO effect and a combinations of other factors in addition to genetics and natural ability.
Incidently, the placebo effect can work both ways. It can work positively or negatively. Some people are successful because they BELIEVE in themselves and their abilities and some people, likewise, are not successful because they don't believe in themselves. There is some extremely fascinating science regarding the placebo effect. BUT how much of a role this placebo effect plays in the success or failure of an individual is hard to measure just like genetics/natural ability is hard to measure and determine. We cannot not say how much of a role either play when it comes to expertise and extraordinary skill because we can't completely separate and isolate them from each other (and other possible factors) and measure them objectively.
It is interesting how you mentioned Roger and Marcelo implying they are great Bjj competitors because of genetics/natural ability. But are they great because of genetics/natural ability or are they great because they simply believed in themselves and worked hard to nuture the ability they had regardless of how big it was?
It seems that if genetics/natural ability was the major reason why they are such great Bjj competitor they would NOT have to work as hard as they did because they already had the genetic/natural ability to begin with. It doesn't make logical sense for a person who is already skilful or who learns things quickly to continually work hard to become skilful. My understanding both Roger and Marcello worked HARD to build and develop their skills. Their work ethic seems to be totally opposite of those who are supposedly "genetically/naturally" gifted.
