This video is particularly tailored to weight training but the application of what he is saying is for all things in life.
I instantly began to think about esports and progaming houses. These guys are just genetically natured/nurtured to be good at playing games; solving problems, being dextrous and fast, doing mechanical checklists in their heads over and over, that when you focus them into a house with other like minded people- they can do nothing but be the absolute best.
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is, maybe a little philosophical discussion or scientific debate, but it is interesting considering that there is this sort of mentality within the SC community that you need to just focus, practice, watch replays and vods, to get good. Which I have always thought to be sort of misleading/exploitative and hurtful to people.
Your natural abilities and talents are going to tell you immediately if you are capable of stretching them to their limits that would exceed or be on par with the best of other players. And like he says in the video, it is a foolish waste of time to try and force something or be something that your genetics are telling you not to do. For a lot of people though, it is hard to find that thing that your genetics are telling you to do. How have you found that thing (if you have found it)?
Don't buy into bullshit. That toad hasn't even established that there was a genetic limit, much less how he got that information.
Your natural abilities and talents are going to tell you immediately if you are capable of stretching them to their limits that would exceed or be on par with the best of other players
And don't spread the nonsense either.
If you seek insight or even wisdom, some hack bodybuilder may not be the best choice. Particularly, because that profession is notoriously hypocritical. It's like asking a Tour de France contestant how to win the thing without doping.
my gift must be getting slightly better than average in something then getting frustrated by diminishing marginal utility of time spent and moving on to something else. i have zero focus
Your genetics dictate that you are unable to breathe underwater or in outer space. But something as whimsical as playing a game certainly is not primarily limited by genetics. Unless you were born blind or something like that.
On September 07 2013 17:49 spinesheath wrote: Your genetics dictate that you are unable to breathe underwater or in outer space. But something as whimsical as playing a game certainly is not primarily limited by genetics. Unless you were born blind or something like that.
What makes you say that? If people are born with bodies that favor strength or endurance, why wouldn't some people's brains be more suited to play games? It's not about the primary limits, it's about the absolute limit of what you can reach.
On September 07 2013 17:21 Dagobert wrote: Don't buy into bullshit. That toad hasn't even established that there was a genetic limit, much less how he got that information.
Your natural abilities and talents are going to tell you immediately if you are capable of stretching them to their limits that would exceed or be on par with the best of other players
And don't spread the nonsense either.
If you seek insight or even wisdom, some hack bodybuilder may not be the best choice. Particularly, because that profession is notoriously hypocritical. It's like asking a Tour de France contestant how to win the thing without doping.
On September 07 2013 17:21 Dagobert wrote: Don't buy into bullshit. That toad hasn't even established that there was a genetic limit, much less how he got that information.
Your natural abilities and talents are going to tell you immediately if you are capable of stretching them to their limits that would exceed or be on par with the best of other players
And don't spread the nonsense either.
If you seek insight or even wisdom, some hack bodybuilder may not be the best choice. Particularly, because that profession is notoriously hypocritical. It's like asking a Tour de France contestant how to win the thing without doping.
This guy is pretty legit as far as information. He's not one of the Mike Chang's of YT or the Tony Horton idiots you see on TV. The reason I know this is because he always mentions that what he is saying is just what has worked for him, or what is currently understood. He also often mentions the very thing you brought up, he's just a man and he could be completely wrong. He's a pretty honest person.
PS- he's far from a hack, he studies body science and reads a lot of books, he has a family and wife, owns a gym, does personal training, hosts seminars, has a few YT channels, runs an online store etc. Do you have some particular experience with Elliott Hulse or know something better I should look at? Or (just asking) were you just upset by the fact this is an attack on your personal lifestyle or pride with gaming or something?
On September 07 2013 17:36 skzlime wrote: my gift must be getting slightly better than average in something then getting frustrated by diminishing marginal utility of time spent and moving on to something else. i have zero focus
I have had a similar experience in life. I feel like the age old saying "Jack of all trades. Master of none." has been a pretty truthful statement with my life. I can easily learn to do anything and even exceed in doing it above the average most times, but if it comes to being the best at something specific I just can't do it or I stop caring about it at a certain level (no more challenge or excitement in the endeavor). I would say my best gift is learning and adapting quickly and often, what the hell does that translate into as far as a passion, hobby, or career though?
I always found it absurd that people thought that if they worked hard enough, then they could transform their brain into that of a genius, or re-wire their body to have faster reaction times and become the best SC2 player ever.
Genetics clearly limits us in obvious ways as someone else posted, we can't breathe underwater no matter how hard you try. You can't "will" yourself to have a faster reaction time, when it is something that is built into your body's nervous system. Some people are simply going to have a faster, better body than yours. Michael Phelps, for example, actually has a body that is particularly well-adapted to swimming - he's taller and he's double jointed. And its generally accepted that the taller you are the faster you are (link).
Unless people prove that "mind over matter" is actually possible and we can physically change our bodies by sheer willpower, the idea that we can all be equal seems kind of childish. And I sincerely agree with the OP in that this is the kind of attitude that can be damaging to people. If someone goes into SC2 to become a pro-gamer thinking that if they just "work hard enough" they can be better than Innovation or Life, then they're setting themselves up for failure. Its doubly problematic because often their SC2 career will come at the expense of getting an education. Of course this extends to many areas besides pro-gaming.
There is such a thing as brain plasticity though, and more research needs to be done to determine how much the brain can grow and evolve. But I think so far all the evidence points to the fact that nature and nurture combined determine who we are, and you have to be aware that nature will ultimately limit you at some point. Its the same reason why tennis players are generally forced to retire after 35 years; everything becomes harder to maintain, regardless how hard you try or want to believe the opposite.
On September 07 2013 23:09 radscorpion9 wrote: Unless people prove that "mind over matter" is actually possible and we can physically change our bodies by sheer willpower, the idea that we can all be equal seems kind of childish. And I sincerely agree with the OP in that this is the kind of attitude that can be damaging to people. If someone goes into SC2 to become a pro-gamer thinking that if they just "work hard enough" they can be better than Innovation or Life, then they're setting themselves up for failure. Its doubly problematic because often their SC2 career will come at the expense of getting an education. Of course this extends to many areas besides pro-gaming.
The thing about SC2 is that how fast you are don't mean crap. You simply need to use your actions as efficiently as possible, which doesn't require insane strength or speed. Any human who isn't paralyzed or otherwise physically hindered could beat Innovation.
Also, talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work.
On September 07 2013 23:09 radscorpion9 wrote: Genetics clearly limits us in obvious ways as someone else posted, we can't breathe underwater no matter how hard you try. You can't "will" yourself to have a faster reaction time, when it is something that is built into your body's nervous system.
The differences in reaction time among human beings has little to do with the nervous system. It has everything to do with training to spot ancillary cues and anticipating future circumstances from those. It's why baseball players can hit 90 mph fastballs but can't touch 60 mph softballs.
Also please never quote Life as an example of a "talented prodigy". All the old-school fans remember when he was legitimately terrible in ZvP and ZvT and couldn't beat decent players to save his life. He wasn't particularly good when he started and it took him a very long time to get anywhere.
I don't think following checklists is a particularly rare genetic trait. If you can't do it it's probably not because you don't have the right genes for it.
As others said there clearly is such a thing as genetic limits but beyond some obvious examples people aren't very good at recognizing where they are. And why should they? When people say they've reached their limit what they mean is that they tried a number of approaches and hit a wall or started to see diminishing returns. But the number of possible approaches you could try is almost limitless, so in reality they might just be approaching the problem incorrectly.
Even saying that early success at something is a requirement to eventually becoming very good is incorrect. One counter-example is Magnus Carlsen. For years after having learned how to play chess he was little better than average. Then in a few years he became the youngest grandmaster in the world and eventually nr.1 on the rating lists. He's considered to be the most 'naturally talented' player in the world and not particularly hard working compared to other top players. Yet, his natural talent didn't show for years.
Makes a lot of sense. I also like that he realizes how important focus is, which could be seen as part of nuture. Ironically, as long as wealth stays distributed as unevenly as it is today, there is a great chance that even with bad genetics, you can become dominant in the field you wish to pursue.
The nature vs nurture debate is a silly but difficult one. People like to look at the very tip top of competition (ex: the Olympics) and say 'these people all had intense practice regimes to even be here, so why did one of them do better?' and the common dog shit answer is 'because that one had better genetics.'
Reality is much more complicated than that. I might grant that the simpler the skill, the more significant role genetics will play in it (lol Michael Phelps), but if you're using Brood War as your example that doesn't work because there are too many different skills that game rewards (every bonjwa has approached the game in a different way), and I would say that such a mentally stressful game is going to be far more impacted by environment and personal fulfillment than it is by genetics.
It's a worthless thing to think about because it creates self-fulfilling prophecies that limit your potential. Brood War progamers always said 'any pro gamer can beat any other progamer.' It's not a limit like say, how tall you are. It's your management of your personal life which you can control. Maybe genetics impacts your personality, but who knows how much, and who cares? I know my own personality hasn't been that static over my life-time.
Question for those disagreeing with the OP: Do you not have friends who are just terrible at pretty much every video game they play and even after countless hours invested still make the same mistakes and show a significant lack of improvement? And you don't have another friend who can very quickly pick something up and become good at it after a small amount of time played (that's me in my case but whatever)? There is definitely a level of natural talent to playing video games and it's not all about "practice". I get the feeling that those who disagree seem to be brainwashed by a society that tells you "you can be whatever you want" when in reality some people just aren't cut out for certain things.
Weasel- that's more about what a given person wants to get out of a video game. You're not genetically superior to your friends at video games, they just don't care as much as you do. You're right that you can't just mindlessly practice to get better... You have to practice intelligently and work on specific problems with your playing. It's similar to academic success. Sure there are people who study a lot and still don't do as well as their classmates, but there are ineffective study styles too. Like studying crap you already know, or just reading through something over and over without writing down the specific things you don't know. Using time effectively is a skill that is learned, and can't be described as a natural talent. It's incredibly easy to answer that question at low levels of competition.
A person can definitely be trained to develop effective study techniques. The limit to not being able to be whatever you want to be has more to do with supply and demand than it has to do with genetic capacity, as long as you don't need to be the very best, just effective and good at your job. "in reality some people just aren't cut out for certain things' is kind of a disgusting statement. I can't flap my wings and fly, but if I study a discipline I will become effective and so will almost any other human being without severe mental handicaps. Failing is just a matter of either not knowing how to study or not thinking it is worth it to have to work that hard (when you could be doing x other thing), or having society induced confidence issues*.
*There are plenty of studies where students who are reminded of gender or race stereotypes (like women are worse at math, or black people score lower on tests) right before a test will have their results effected. When you say something like 'some people just aren't cut out!' you participate in that self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I say it's disgusting.
I think that 'genetic limits' probably exist in some form or another for just about everything, but the issue is that the mind vs muscle comparison fails heavily. The OP's source might have reached a genetic limit for X physical trait, but it's much, much, much, much, much harder to do that with mental subjects. The OP is extremely reaching to apply a physical strength scenario to every discipline known to man and say that it still applies equally.
It doesn't. You're wrong and possibly trying to compensate for something. Mental limits most likely exist, but I doubt most people are even close to reaching them (including myself of course). Speaking relatively, physical limits are vastly easier to hit than mental ones.
Edit: Even in cases where the person is severely mentally retarded, they can continue to learn new skills throughout their life, just slowly. You could argue they had a mental "obstacle" or something that slows them down from learning, but it is not impossible, even in severely handicapped people, to learn.
On September 08 2013 00:46 hypercube wrote: Even saying that early success at something is a requirement to eventually becoming very good is incorrect. One counter-example is Magnus Carlsen. For years after having learned how to play chess he was little better than average. Then in a few years he became the youngest grandmaster in the world and eventually nr.1 on the rating lists. He's considered to be the most 'naturally talented' player in the world and not particularly hard working compared to other top players. Yet, his natural talent didn't show for years.
He learned to play chess at the age of five. The only sense in which he has ever been average is if you compare him to other chess prodigies. He got his GM title while still in puberty.
On September 08 2013 01:50 Chef wrote: Brood War progamers always said 'any pro gamer can beat any other progamer.'
Yes, any of the very best players can beat each other. That says nothing about the vast majority who has no chance of ever reaching their level.
On September 08 2013 04:17 dcemuser wrote: Mental limits most likely exist, but I doubt most people are even close to reaching them (including myself of course). Speaking relatively, physical limits are vastly easier to hit than mental ones.
Reaching your physical limit in, say, bench press, probably takes about a decade. To me, people seem to reach their intellectual peaks in roughly the same time, whether you talk about chess or science. I can't see any good reason to assume talent is less important for mental activities, in general, or StarCraft in particular.
Everyone has control over their lives and the ability to be whatever they want to be within specific guidelines. That means that even if the average person can't be as good as Flash (who, for the sake of this argument, is the most talented progamer to date), they can still reach masters or grandmasters on any ladder with dedicated and deliberate practice.
I played piano for several years, went to college for it, etc. I've seen several people who were naturally incredibly gifted and excelled at everything, and I've also seen a lot of people who were not very gifted but still managed to keep up. Whether or not you can be the best concert pianist in the world, you can still graduate from college with a piano performance degree and still make a living off of accompanying and playing for churches/special events. Talent is a real thing, but it's only 10% of what makes a person great at something; the rest is hard work.
You have to be careful with your reference groups. Even the least talented people at your music college are probably above average as far as talent goes, if you consider the population as a whole. While talent may not account for that much of the difference in a sample which is already selected for aptitude, this doesn't show that talent isn't practically a requirement for reaching that level in the first place.
On September 08 2013 05:09 SC2John wrote: Everyone has control over their lives and the ability to be whatever they want to be within specific guidelines. That means that even if the average person can't be as good as Flash (who, for the sake of this argument, is the most talented progamer to date), they can still reach masters or grandmasters on any ladder with dedicated and deliberate practice.
I played piano for several years, went to college for it, etc. I've seen several people who were naturally incredibly gifted and excelled at everything, and I've also seen a lot of people who were not very gifted but still managed to keep up. Whether or not you can be the best concert pianist in the world, you can still graduate from college with a piano performance degree and still make a living off of accompanying and playing for churches/special events. Talent is a real thing, but it's only 10% of what makes a person great at something; the rest is hard work.
Time is limited, and at the top everyone works hard. So talent wins there
On September 08 2013 00:46 hypercube wrote: I don't think following checklists is a particularly rare genetic trait. If you can't do it it's probably not because you don't have the right genes for it.
I meant, mental checklists within the game. 'Starsense' timings. Like for example, knowing when you need to hit those injects, not missing supply depots, constantly producing workers and units at the right pace, etc.
On September 08 2013 05:09 SC2John wrote:
I played piano for several years, went to college for it, etc. I've seen several people who were naturally incredibly gifted and excelled at everything, and I've also seen a lot of people who were not very gifted but still managed to keep up. Whether or not you can be the best concert pianist in the world, you can still graduate from college with a piano performance degree and still make a living off of accompanying and playing for churches/special events. Talent is a real thing, but it's only 10% of what makes a person great at something; the rest is hard work.
Are you pretty good at games/sc2? It would seem that piano dexterity and the learning of complex note patterns and timings etc would translate well into RTS gameplay. If so, I wonder if other piano gamers have similar experience. Or for that matter, any dextrous hobbies like that, playing guitar, techdeck/pen spinning/butterfly knife, etc.
On September 07 2013 17:36 skzlime wrote: my gift must be getting slightly better than average in something then getting frustrated by diminishing marginal utility of time spent and moving on to something else. i have zero focus
I have had a similar experience in life. I feel like the age old saying "Jack of all trades. Master of none." has been a pretty truthful statement with my life. I can easily learn to do anything and even exceed in doing it above the average most times, but if it comes to being the best at something specific I just can't do it or I stop caring about it at a certain level (no more challenge or excitement in the endeavor). I would say my best gift is learning and adapting quickly and often, what the hell does that translate into as far as a passion, hobby, or career though?
Pretty hard to do that when someone's standing on your chest but ok.
On September 08 2013 05:09 SC2John wrote: Everyone has control over their lives and the ability to be whatever they want to be within specific guidelines. That means that even if the average person can't be as good as Flash (who, for the sake of this argument, is the most talented progamer to date), they can still reach masters or grandmasters on any ladder with dedicated and deliberate practice.
I played piano for several years, went to college for it, etc. I've seen several people who were naturally incredibly gifted and excelled at everything, and I've also seen a lot of people who were not very gifted but still managed to keep up. Whether or not you can be the best concert pianist in the world, you can still graduate from college with a piano performance degree and still make a living off of accompanying and playing for churches/special events. Talent is a real thing, but it's only 10% of what makes a person great at something; the rest is hard work.
Time is limited, and at the top everyone works hard. So talent wins there
Not all hard work is equal. Like Chef mentioned, there are superior ways to study/practice. Two people with similar levels of 'talent' practicing for the same amount of time each day will most likely have differing results.
Attributing genetics and talent is done by two types of people:
1. People who aren't good enough and need something to blame their inadequacy on. 2. People who are really good and attribute something other than their own hard work to sound humble.
Do something for 10 000 hours and you'll be amazing at it.
On September 08 2013 21:40 Tobberoth wrote: Attributing genetics and talent is done by two types of people:
1. People who aren't good enough and need something to blame their inadequacy on. 2. People who are really good and attribute something other than their own hard work to sound humble.
Do something for 10 000 hours and you'll be amazing at it.
3. Realistic people.
We're talking about the absolute limits of performance in certain areas here, not a gold SC2 player who's mad he's not getting into platinum because he's "untalented". The point is not to argue whether people could become better at things given the right mindset and training, the point is whether people should be encouraged to try and become the best in a career path they have no talent in.
On September 08 2013 21:40 Tobberoth wrote: Attributing genetics and talent is done by two types of people:
1. People who aren't good enough and need something to blame their inadequacy on. 2. People who are really good and attribute something other than their own hard work to sound humble.
Do something for 10 000 hours and you'll be amazing at it.
3. Realistic people.
We're talking about the absolute limits of performance in certain areas here, not a gold SC2 player who's mad he's not getting into platinum because he's "untalented". The point is not to argue whether people could become better at things given the right mindset and training, the point is whether people should be encouraged to try and become the best in a career path they have no talent in.
To be honest, trying to excel at something and seeking challenges to overcome is the western way of life. I do not understand why it is so many people look down on this life style (just speaking about people in general here). It doesn't matter if you do not achieve your goals to become the best of the best, atleast you had a purpose in life, atleast you made yourself a better person by constantly trying to improve yourself. It will help you excel in other areas of life to, because you learned discipline and tenacity.
But....and here is the but, you have to be smart about anything you do, do not drop out of highschool to chase your ambitions, always have a plan b. But this has nothing to do about why you should not chase your ambitions.
On September 07 2013 23:09 radscorpion9 wrote: Genetics clearly limits us in obvious ways as someone else posted, we can't breathe underwater no matter how hard you try. You can't "will" yourself to have a faster reaction time, when it is something that is built into your body's nervous system.
The differences in reaction time among human beings has little to do with the nervous system. It has everything to do with training to spot ancillary cues and anticipating future circumstances from those. It's why baseball players can hit 90 mph fastballs but can't touch 60 mph softballs.
Also please never quote Life as an example of a "talented prodigy". All the old-school fans remember when he was legitimately terrible in ZvP and ZvT and couldn't beat decent players to save his life. He wasn't particularly good when he started and it took him a very long time to get anywhere.
On September 08 2013 20:46 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Blah blah blah genetics. 99,99% is hard work....the rest is luck and genetics.
This is what I'm talking about. This mentality that anyone can be an astronaut or a physicist or whatever if they just work hard. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard, or that hard work hasn't achieved anything. I think it's just wrong and misleading to children. I know some really smart kids who seem to be naturally quick and witty and I know some really dumb kids who are just naturally slow. And I don't think it has much to do with the nurture element.
Intellectual pursuits don't have as clear of a "genetic limit" as weightlifting, since intelligence is malleable and could potentially keep increasing until your 60s-70s, if you work at it. I'm confident that the vast majority of people could have the intellectual capacity to become engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. if they were trained to do some from a very young age. Of course if somebody is stupid by their mid-20s, they will never be a genius.
The same is not true for physical aspects, since after a certain point your body will simply not produce any more muscle or bone mass, no matter how hard you train. There are barely any (possibly 0) pro bodybuilders who are not on all sorts of anabolic steroids. I would bet that the vast majority of pro athletes in other sports are on other drugs too - anavar and clen especially. I doubt there's a single human being on Earth whose genetically able to reach 6'6+ 280+ lbs at <15% BF without PEDs/AAS, even though most football (American) and basketball players fit that description. A lot of them probably took HGH during their teenage years too.
On September 08 2013 20:46 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Blah blah blah genetics. 99,99% is hard work....the rest is luck and genetics.
This is what I'm talking about. This mentality that anyone can be an astronaut or a physicist or whatever if they just work hard. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard, or that hard work hasn't achieved anything. I think it's just wrong and misleading to children. I know some really smart kids who seem to be naturally quick and witty and I know some really dumb kids who are just naturally slow. And I don't think it has much to do with the nurture element.
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...”
― Albert Einstein
I have known really stupid people who finished a master degree at university (im speaking about people with a below 100 IQ), it might have taken them a few years longer but in the end they still did it. Will they be good at what they do? I don`t know. But atleast they have proven that they can do it, they can practice a better job and earn more then if they would have just started working after highschool (just speaking in general here).
And yea, it is misleading to children if you tell them, you will be a astronaut when you grow up, because chances are slim...but if this child tries to pursue this dream, who knows he ends up with a master degree in sciences and finds a nice job, he didnt realise his dream, but it didnt ruin his life.
You only have one life, you should do with it what you want, and if it fails, yea it might hurt, but atleast you tried.
You should nurture dreams and ambitions in children, i think its a good thing, but yea, lifes a bitch and its not always a fairy tale.
On September 08 2013 20:46 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Blah blah blah genetics. 99,99% is hard work....the rest is luck and genetics.
This is what I'm talking about. This mentality that anyone can be an astronaut or a physicist or whatever if they just work hard. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard, or that hard work hasn't achieved anything. I think it's just wrong and misleading to children. I know some really smart kids who seem to be naturally quick and witty and I know some really dumb kids who are just naturally slow. And I don't think it has much to do with the nurture element.
I don't think that's true at all. It's all about interest. I can't even imagine a person who is interested enough in space to try to become an astronaut who simply can't do it in the end because he was born "too dumb", unless he has some real physical disability.
What's more likely to be a commonality among people of very high education? That they studied a lot, or that they were born with better genes?
I don't trust the OP's video. I think the idea of genetic limits is interesting, but the guy presenting the idea is probably wrong.
Are black people just less athletic or are they driven less than their asian peers by their parents and do they have a harder time finding friends that aren't black as well as an onslaught of societal stigma?
On September 08 2013 20:46 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Blah blah blah genetics. 99,99% is hard work....the rest is luck and genetics.
This is what I'm talking about. This mentality that anyone can be an astronaut or a physicist or whatever if they just work hard. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard, or that hard work hasn't achieved anything. I think it's just wrong and misleading to children. I know some really smart kids who seem to be naturally quick and witty and I know some really dumb kids who are just naturally slow. And I don't think it has much to do with the nurture element.
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...” ― Albert Einstein .
Someone suggested earlier that there are only 2 kinds of people, dumb people blaming genes, and smart people playing modest. I think Einstein is the latter here, otherwise that's a pretty dumb statement. I would say it's something more along the lines of 30/70 on a general principle, but for specific application to something it would have to be at least 50/50 because you can't have one without the other when achieving a goal on the order of magnitude of something like the theory of relativity. So I could argue that without the talent the hardwork does nothing, and without the hardwork the talent also does nothing.
On September 08 2013 20:46 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Blah blah blah genetics. 99,99% is hard work....the rest is luck and genetics.
This is what I'm talking about. This mentality that anyone can be an astronaut or a physicist or whatever if they just work hard. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard, or that hard work hasn't achieved anything. I think it's just wrong and misleading to children. I know some really smart kids who seem to be naturally quick and witty and I know some really dumb kids who are just naturally slow. And I don't think it has much to do with the nurture element.
I don't think that's true at all. It's all about interest. I can't even imagine a person who is interested enough in space to try to become an astronaut who simply can't do it in the end because he was born "too dumb", unless he has some real physical disability.
What's more likely to be a commonality among people of very high education? That they studied a lot, or that they were born with better genes?
Correlation isn't causation though.
As far as your argument for space, there are other requirements besides IQ. Some of them they just will not let a person into space with due to risks both financially and physically. I dunno maybe you end up too short or something (don't really know all the space reqs)
Another point. Cavities and toothbrushing. I know people with the same eating, brushing/flossing habits as me and some who do more or less and it doesn't seem to effect them at all. I brush and floss pretty regularly and I don't eat many sweets. I have gotten dozens of cavities within my life and a root canal last year. I know a couple people who probably eat more sweets and don't even floss at all and they have never had a cavity (or have had like one). On that same note, I started to get my wisdom teeth when I was like 12 or something and have never had a problem with them, while others get them growing in at fucked up angles or just simply don't have enough space in the jawline for another set of teeth and have to have them removed.
Once you cut out all the shameful craps out of your life (wasting time with idiots, doing nothing in front of the computer, masturbation), and learn how to manage your time, you get a lot of it. Definitely enough to get very good, or stop being mediocre, at multiple things. I much prefer being a "complete" man, than somebody excellent at 1-2 things, which is the definition of a tool. To oversimplify my thought, I've always been repulsed by skinny nerds and retarded brutes.
On September 12 2013 02:08 SiroKO wrote: Once you cut out all the shameful craps out of your life (wasting time with idiots, doing nothing in front of the computer, masturbation), and learn how to manage your time, you get a lot of it. Definitely enough to get very good, or stop being mediocre, at multiple things. I much prefer being a "complete" man, than somebody excellent at 1-2 things, which is the definition of a tool. To oversimplify my thought, I've always been repulsed by skinny nerds and retarded brutes.
What? You just combined like 10 thoughts into 1 paragraph, what was your point?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/a7E5RrLHpGr2eCD**xXswuDC-EapoZGcYJWQRlyotX-z0ssaT-cyJWDCtY2kDeWQyJFuw55giQL1gsWg63p-mWSiWSEWPhAw/funnygifproblemsdreamsreality.gif)
