I think when they meant beeing good at something was like you were better than the average person that does that sport or activity. I am going to answer this question in PU meaning: what are your skills that can get a girl saying: "oh nice, you are really good at... "
In my opinion you don't need to compete to be good at something... i enjoy to play guitar and bass guitar and juggle and do that stuff and i know that i am good at it but i just enter skate contests.
I am good at:
Skate
Fingerboard
Juggling
Guitar
Bass guitar
Playing xbox EA skate xD
Poker

What I am articulating is that thier is natural aptitude in this world, alot of what we are can be molded, but there plenty of people who have a head start.

Michael Phelps for instance has the perfect body for swimming, so as long as he has the same work out regime and proportioned diet as all the other swimmers he will always win barring extraneous factors.

Michael Phelps may be in his position becuase he worked hard, but to say that genetics has nothing to do with his success is mis-leading.

It's OK to admitt that you are not built for an activity, that doesn't mean you have to quit. You just have to accept that their are some factors outside of your control.

I appreciate your input but I have to disagree with you. I don't think you fully understand what I am saying. About the 5ft tall basketball players, of course in some sports genetics matters to some extent, for example it is easier for taller basketball players to shoot as they have an easier angle. But if you practiced shooting loads you would be good at it, just because they have a genetic advantage does not mean that they will be better. Same with nfl (Drew Brees anyone?). And of course situation matters, if you were born into a family of expert coaches in football, you probably would be good at it. But to use another example brazilian football players are the best in the world. Were they born with the luxury of football coaching and drills? No they just happened to be born in the most football obsessed nation in the world where everyone plays football all the time. And by playing ALL THE TIME they gained experience thus developed their skills.

So I am not setting myself up for disappointing falls in life, the limits are there to be challenged and broken, some activities are genetically reliant but the vast majority are not.

Yeah and about the accuracy of my points, I agree with you they are not fact but there is a vast amount of evidence that suggests this (if you want an example: Laszlo Polgar (google him), an educational psychologist who was a big advocate of the fact that world class performers are made not born decided to conduct his own experiment with his children. He decided to train them into chess champions (he claimed that even before the first was born), even though he knew nothing about chess. He started really young with all three girls. Susan, became the number one female champion and won world championships, Sofia won numerous championship and olympiads and Judit became the youngest ever grandmaster, male or female. The evidence in this is overwhelming and if you look right now into sport there are even more, the Williams sister, were coached at a very young age by their dad, who decided to turn them into tennis champions because their was lots of money in tennis)

"What I am articulating is that thier is natural aptitude in this world, alot of what we are can be molded, but there plenty of people who have a head start"

That it total sh**, as I stated earlier, (it has been proven and there is evidence) their are no genes encoded that make you good at certain sports, we are all born equal and what one may regard as a "natural" may have played the sport a lot or learned the basic skills elsewhere, which play a part in the ability of the person at that sport.


Nick G



PS Fin as you mentioned you are a psych student I really recommend you should read BOUNCE by Matthew Syed, its really intellectually stimulating and there are lots of useful things you can take from it (almost everything that I have written in my posts has been from the book). Also what sort of psychology do you do? I might want to do social psychology at uni, is it any good? (But not anytime soon, I'm 15 )

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

First of all- congratulations on your balls to post your own recordings and videos on this site to be scrutinised! You have a definite sence of rhythm and tune and hard work! I can only give you the most relevant advice given to me by Eddie Allen Producer of Guitarist magazine (England) and thats you have got to MEAN IT - really mean it - so your heart and soul is in the song and when you finish playing it your adrenalised and got your point across- cheaks flushed emotions raised blood pumping - it makes a technically very good performance into one that is art. Then you find your own style and sound and become able to express yourself in your own personal way.
Hence becoming an artist.

I'd love to see the evidence from this.

What about attitude? When I first started playing Age of Empires I was shit. I started at 15 when I was recovering from years of bullying at school. My self confidence was shattered, and I was nervous to take any risks. Most of all I didn't want to be noticed as being noticed had often led bad things to come my way.

I started sixth form college and I was still shit at age of empires. Different circumstances coerced me into coming out of my shell and making new friends and growing as a person, but on Age of Empires I still played people the same rank and ranks below me, never better (there is a point to this). I was safe on the internet, comfortable, no matter what happened outside.

Second year of college came and I started to get with girls, and eventually became reputable for it. Being a loser still, I was proud of it and overconfident, and one day I decided that I didn't need Age of Empires anymore for comfort; I entered the competitive stage and risked my pixel points.

I set myself a goal of ONLY playing the weakest civilization, because then I would always be disadvantaged and reminding myself that I didn't need the points. I lost at first, but I realised I didn't care. I learned new things that I hadn't noticed in the game during the years because I was happy being comfortable. I played only people better than me, and I rose to being one of the world's best Portugal players and the best player in the UK at one point.

The only thing that changed was my attitude. I quit the game at over 2200 on the ELO ladder (equivalent of a Chess grandmaster I believe) because to break 2300+ massive amounts of time were needed, time I wanted to socialise with.

Anyone can be good at anything, but the attitude is needed as well as other factors (I tend to question things a lot which helped me in AoE).

Edit

I've said this before but to me it's very important: the only way to actually improve is to blame yourself.

It's a given that Russia will always beat Portugal (assuming both players can play the game reasonably and are not noobs) because of their quick army mass against Portugal's slow start. I can blame Russia being too powerful for me losing, but what good is that to anyone? How does that help me to beat Russia? I blamed myself for being too slow and got faster in my gameplay to beat them, making me a better player overall.

True, they are both two different things, but practice is essential for both. Surely you can work that out?


And with the links.... are you kidding me I am definately not being selective in evidence. Are you trying to insult me? Give me an example of someone who is "naturally gifted" or a sport or a sportsman that doesn't require/need much practice (other than ones based on genetics). And then I will tell you I am wrong

Easier said than done huh?


I cannot believe how you still question me. I have laid out the facts but you deny them, without giving any real explanation as to why they are wrong.

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

Sorry I don't have the scientific experiments that show this (even though they have been proven), but logically this is true. Mozart, for example, is a classic example of what one might call a "natural" or "prodigy". Take it this way, if we look at it at face value, it seems he was an extraordinary person with a gift for music, he composed pieces when he was 4 and performed in front of his country's rulers at age 5. This seems absolutely amazing, at first glance, but underneath the surface we can see this: Mozart's father was a musician, not well known or regarded, but he was a very good music teacher who specialized in teaching music to young children. He started Mozart on an intensive training programme for music and composition when he was three. It is little wonder that Mozart at age 20, wrote what is regarded as the best composition in history, he had been intensively and expertly been trained for 17 years! If you still not think that this explains how he was such an amazing musician as a child, it is estimated that by his sixth birthday mozart had already had 3500 hours of practice. (Many people reckon that to become extremely good at something you must have trained for approx 10,000 hours)

Sorry for the long winded explanation of this, but if you look at many modern sportsmen or musicians or whatever, and find out about their history or childhood you will find that they trained in their field for vast amounts of time/started very young.

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

If anyone can give me a good reason as to why I am wrong then do. Because right now no-one has given me a single good argument or example.

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

I would say that you're absolutely wrong.

It's true that what you're good at doesn't necessarily have to be competitive; music isn't necessarily competitive because there aren't objective scores like the number of goals in a sport. However, if you're basing what you should be proud of based on whether or not girls say "oh nice, you are really good at..." then you're coming at this from the worst possible angle.

When I play guitar, I know that what I can do was made possible by all the practice I've put into it over the past 8 years, and I know that many other guitarists did not put in the same time and effort as I have. In that sense I am comparing myself to others to an extent, but it's mostly about me being proud of the fact that I became better than myself continuously without end.

If you first picked up a guitar 8 years ago and can only play power chords and Green Day songs, you have nothing to be proud of (musically), even if girls tell you "oh nice, you are really good at playing the guitar." The truth is, you're shit and, in the back of your mind, you know it, despite the temporary external validation from that very nice girl.

You should never base what you think you're good at based on whether or not random girls suck up to you for it. The opinions that actually matter are those of your peers and colleagues, so if a girl who was actually a musician (or just someone who knew a lot about music) told you "you are good at guitar," then her opinion would actually matter.

Although it is true about the fact I did want to reach this conclusion when I argued in this debate, my arguments stack up. Of course I want to reach that conclusion and share it with others, it completely shatters our perception of skills and activities, anyone can literally master anything! You also say that I am being selective but honestly I am not. I have given various example and outlines of my argument and if anything you are the one who is being selective, as, you havent given any examples backing up your claims that genetics play a role in your learning capabilities.

I totally agree with you on the whole genetics thing - if you mean that some people start of with more of an advantge in some instances, again back to the basketball-shooting thing. But to say that genetics limit how people can learn more easily is wrong, as is your argument about their limits of these skills.

People learn at the same speed, theoretically (for example a faster typist might progress further in video games purely because they have the one advantage over their counterpart), but this is not genetics, this is past experience and background

And there are no genetic limits, other than the impossible ,to skills (not physical activities). You can never plateau in a skill, maybe in weightlifting, but not in a skill

And as for your question about indentifying with this work, I believe its hard not to. I mean, how many times have you told yourself your naturally not good at something? This completely changes everything and yes it does give hope to me because it shows me that I am not unnatural at something, just inexpienced, and that practice really does make perfect.

BTW: what do you mean by genetical and historical defiency and how owuld it affect the way I view things. Personally I don't think I have really suffered from either.

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

Hobbit pretty much has this down, but I'll chip in to clarify.

1. So you admitt, there are people with a genetic advantage yes?

The logical conclusion of a genetic advantage is that if all other variables are held the same, the geneticly backed guy will do better.

2. You talk about evidence, do you want to post some studies? I know studies by heart that show a link between nurture and high capabilities in life. I can also recite by heart studies which show nurture is NOT a major factor in development. You do realise Polgar is ONE educational psychologist, who is not even that major a figure. It would be shaky grounds on his stuff alone to make assumptions, even if he was specialised in the more relevant area of psychology. Developmental Psychology.

Education is about learning... were you expecting any other results than, "things can be learned".

3. The end note is.. "sure, you could one day punch as hard a Tyson.. but tyson had very heavy hands, lending to an ability to hit hard.... with your bone structure if you want to hit as hard as him you are going to have to put in ALOT more work than he did.

Same goes for mental traits, or would you like to argue that mental traits have no genetic basis, thus rendering the idea that the brain "evolved" null?


------

As a side note, you are 15. Thinking back to when I was 15, I can see this discussion will bring alot of headaches for me and anyone else talking with you.

At 15 you've never had to write a report and cite references for it in the standard APA format, or use statistical analysis software, you probably haven't the foggiest clue what the theory of experimental design covers and why it is important... christ when I was 15 I didn't know the difference between correlation and causation!

Until you've studied the topic, or have at least owned and read some actual textbooks and manuals on the topic to really grasp how the subject operates, it's going to be painstakingly slow and difficult for you to making any serious academic argument.

In the world of 15 year olds it's perfectly acceptable to go, "I have proven this" then forget to cite any peer reviewed research and just fanny about then make a reference to a self help author.

Hint: The self help industry is NOTORIOUS among psychologists and therapist for handing out bullshit advice to the desperate. Many self help books will cite some psycholoigcal principle, not knowing what it actually means and then use this to justify some crackpot theory about self esteem or happiness. This, is not how psychology works anymore.

So here are some guide lines.

If you're going to comment on psychology and it's findings...

1. Cite studies, for specefic claims like, "mastery only takes practise".
2. Learn the difference between causation and correlation.
3. Anecdotes are not evidence unless your making a quantified claim.

- Example: A succesful MMA fighter who overcame a knee injury incurred via a heel hook, is evidence that THAT fighter could overcome it and fight again. It is NOT a sign that Fighters crippled by a technique notorious for ending peoples athletic careers are just as likely to fight in 1 years time as fighters who were KO'd in their last fight.

On the social psychology note, it depends on what you want to do with psychology.

Im very good in soccer and also im very good has a comedian.

1. Yes I am admitting that their are people with genetic advantages, in a physical sense, but not with learning capabilities.

2. I know what I am saying is completely unbacked from studies. But lets be honest, I am as you say 15, I have no real access to the evidence and do not specialize in the field so I cannot give you any, I simply just do no know them.

Also, about your suggestion that Polgar is just one person and is not a major figure. I am not saying that he is a grand figure in psychology. I have not said anything as such. I gave him as evidence of the theory of practice, he made his three daughter into chess champions! So i am not making assumptions The evidence does suggest that my case is true. NOTE I am not saying it is true and I am open to a change in view. But you havent convinced me im wrong.

3. As for your mental traits point. I am not saying that mental traits can be molded. You can't improve your IQ and your extroversion is genetic,. But your confidence and charisma etc, are things that can be learned because they are not trained, they are skills in a sense.

Also, purely from a psychological/scientific view, is shyness a trait you are born with or is it something learned. And also, if it is a trait, can it really ever be fully overcome, or is it ever present in your actions? (there is lots of debate about this and different views, I'd love to get this cleared up)

I'm not sure if I am right on the matter but I think that it is learned and is due to environmental aspects (as well but you have to have the genetics). That is why shyness can be overcome and eventually got rid of because although the genetics cannot be change, the environment can. (You want evidence of my conclusions so: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/03/05/22382.aspx )


---

Yeah I see where youre coming from. Its true, i havent got a clue on how to reference and provide a detalied scientific arguement. This will probably give you headaches as you said, I have got no scientific studies to refer from, just a book,

NOTE: Its not a self help book, it just a book discussing the factors that affect becoming a peak sportsman, and the arguments are valid. I cannot cite the experiments that he made to reach those conclusions, but he has cited them in the book.

1. True, will try to do that
2. I already know the difference
3. I have no scientific data, and so giving anecdotes is all I have got. But also, I have given vast amounts of anecdotes that can be easily seen to prove my point.

But I can argue that case for you, you are giving me no evidence to suggest I am wrong. You say that you know studies off by heart that both suggest and don't suggest that nurture is a major factor in development, but you don't tell them to me. It is little wonder I am so stubborn in my arguments as you haven't given me evidence either!

hobbit said about silent evidence and that I am selectively choosing all the things that prove me to be right. You could use silent evidence as a counter-argument for everything. And as for being selective, I am just giving examples, and I have not come across any that have challenged my POV

In the view of being selective I will show you that you are living proof of practice theory. Think back to when you first started a skill you are now really good at. Some might have said you were a natural, but if you think about it, what were the skills needed to be successful at this activity? There are bound to be ones that you have already practiced before, leading you to be percieved as better than someone should be if they are new to the activity. The abilities that you already learnt before mean that you progress to a higher level than a person who has started at the same time as you, but with no experience before. This is because you had more experience than them. You may not have had more experience in the sport, but you had more experience with th skills that are integral to it.

^ I know this is an anecdote, but that does't mean that it is worthless, it is quite logical, and although I do not have scientific basis, I believe that it can be deduced.

As for the social psychology I want to find out and learn about the human responses to certain things and the causes. (I find it fascinating)

Lastly, can you suggest any textbooks or manuals on this subject because I would love to read up on it and find it very interesting.



PS thanks for your responses you are really challenging my views on psychology and are giving me something new to think about!

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali

1. Many Theorists on IQ, learning and development would argue differently. I personally like Garnders theory of multiple intellegences, we have various different skills and a base aptitude in them all, and we build on that, using our current schemas (sometimes adapting) from where we started.

There's alot we can learn, but we have to work with what we got. - this seems to be general theme which I have gathered over the past couple of years.

2. You'd get these references on a wiki page, or any book on psychology not pseudo science.

And no, the case of Polgars daughters gives evidence that hard and smart work can accomplish alot. It's not saying "all skills are learnt, it's nothing to do with genetics"

If Polgars daughters quantified their study routine for chess, and a similar father replicated it. All it would take is a significant difference in ability or speed of learning between the daughters themselves or someone else doing the same routine and you have a situation where a persons genetics have given them an upper hand.

Polgars daughters studied and practised incredibly hard to get where they are, a child genius however to get to their standard would maybe only need two thirds the training time that they did.

No one needs to prove you wrong becuase honestly you haven't made a very conclusive case FOR.

3. IQ can be improved, it all depends on how you are categorising Intellegence Quotient though, as intellegence in itself is another area where there is little consensus. As for extroversion, I'm going to be a lot less confident than you becuase I know the area of "personality" is a big cooking pot of arguments right now in psychology and the claim "extroversion is genetic" is not only confusing but also a VERY bold claim to make with such dissent amongst academics.

As a rule of thumb, if the Phd squad can't decide, you should be very wary of stating any beliefs on the subject as accepted fact.

4. I'll tell you why I haven't cited my studies (or even given my argument or views on the subject)....

.. You have to appreciate that psychology as a young science is often filled with hot debate and skills learned or skill ability genetic is one of those massive debates.

What you are arguing for is a VERY extreme version of the nurture argument. The fact that it rests on an extreme end itself is immiediate cause to throw it out as both the pure nurture and the purist nativists/genetisists have had to adapt and compromise.

Your position is stuck in the 1950's and it'd be much better for you to read some actual textbooks on the subject so you can catch up on whats what in the world of psychology. Rather than mis-use a educational psychologists work and then cite a "not" self help book then be under the impression that you're "speaking scientificaly".

For this one, my opinions and I will happily sit on the fence until the dust settles. I suggest you do the same!

As for textbooks, go to a book store and just get an overall one for high school psych, don't bother with anything too in depth until you've done a course and had someone their to explain things when they get confusing.

Good luck!


----
Social psych tends to be focused on attitudes, (ranging from racism to enviromental beliefs) and phenomenons like obedience and conformity. If you really want to go into detail on a personal level then your looking at area's of cognitive psychology and psychotherapy.[/quote]

Thanks for your reply, that was really helpful, I will definately look into more theories on the subject. I still believe that if skill isn't totally reliant on nuture then it is at least highly reliant. (I'm think that it will cite the experiments listed in my book which, I think, provide evidence as to why skills are totally/heavily based on nuture and see what you think of them)

Also what I quoted above, is this referring to my assumptions on IQ and extroversion or answering my question on shyness. (If its not, can you post what you think, because I really want an answer on this fascinating subject )


Nick

_________________
Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small people - Muhammad Ali