|
Here we go again. This weekend is about good games and good fun. Don't rain on that parade. Play nice guys. Here's the very standard and friendly:
- NO Balance Whine.
- NO Player Bashing.
- NO Caster Bashing.
- NO BM whatsoever.
Breaking these rules (from pg 166 forward) will be met with severe punishment. |
On November 21 2011 15:00 zZygote wrote:
But in all honesty, it's just not possible for anyone, to become a pro. A 16yr old champion was just born, and he's not the first of his kind also, think of Flash or Jaedong. Innate talent definitely has a role in becoming a successful player.
But in the last page, someone posted statistics of that 16 year old champion practicing literally four times as much as the average GM player on the Korean server.
Flash and Jaedong also practiced more than their peers.
Obviously, it's not possible for anyone to become a pro, simply because there are a limited number of pro seats available. This is the same in any sport. There is only so much money available in sponsorship and so only so many seats at the table for pro players to be on a team.
But it would be interesting to see (and with B.Net it should be possible to determine this)-- are there any players in Korea who played as many or more ladder games as Leenock who did not end up becoming pro players?
|
On November 21 2011 14:48 Jeremy Reimer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 14:05 DontLoseSightOfIt wrote:
People who think hard work is all thats needed to be at the top, Im sorry to say, but they simply do not have talents. That is why they want to think they have what it takes to reach the top, purely by practising billions of times.
In reality though, talents are important too. In football, Cristiano Ronaldo is an example of hard work AND talent. Talent is nothing without hard work, but that does not mean talent isn't needed. You need both of course. But going back on topic....
An example would be, if you have talent and hard work = C.Ronaldo
If you hard work a lot and practice a lot = David Villa or someone else.
The thing is, it is just as easy to say that "People who think that talent is what is needed to be at the top, I'm sorry to say, but they simply do not put in hard work. That's why they want to think that they could never be at the top, even if they practiced billions of times." For your example of Ronaldo and David Villa, do you know how much Ronaldo practiced? Including all the hours he practiced as a child? Do you know if it's more or less than David Villa? Whenever things like this are measured, there tends to be a correlation between the amount of practice and the results. That's where the magic "10,000 hours" comes from: Show nested quote +
In one study conducted by Psychologist K. Anders Ericcson done at the Academy of Music in Berlin three groups of violinists were studied. The first group had stars pupils, the second had good students and the third had students who would probably never play professionally. The groups started out at the age of 5 and in the beginning they all practiced roughly the same amount of time for the first few years. Around eight years of age the difference in commitment to the craft started to become obvious.
Here are the numbers of hours per week and by age practiced by those who would go on to become stars:
5 years old = 2-3 hours
9 years old = 6 hours
12 years old = 8 hours
14 years old = 16 hours
21 years old = 30 hours
By the age of 21 the elite violinists had each practiced a total of 10,000 hours. Ericcson went on to look at professional pianists and found the same to be true. By the age of twenty, the amateur pianists had logged a total of 2,000 hours of practice while the elite pianists had reach the 10,000 hour mark.
In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell puts forth the premise that to be an expert in your field requires a devotion to one’s craft for at least 10,000 hours. Gladwell and other elites cited in the book challenge the premise that genius or being gifted is a matter of innate talent. In fact, closer analysis of success stories prove out that the element of innate talent plays a lesser role in achieving expert status than one might think.
Gladwell also points out something quite fascinating and worth remembering. In his study, Ericcson didn’t find any ‘naturals’ or prodigies who effortlessly mastered their instrument. Neither did Ericcson find ordinary people who worked harder than anyone else and yet never made it to the top.
(My emphasis) So, okay, this is just for musicians, and maybe it doesn't carry over to other things. But then just a few posts above mine, someone posted a statistic of Leenock practicing literally four times as much as anyone else in a single Starcraft 2 season. At the very very top, other issues can come into play, such as psychological issues and mind games. This is what makes sports entertaining. The outcome isn't predetermined. There is also the large factor of luck, which can't be disregarded. But this has nothing to do with "talent". The main problem I have with the word "talent" is that it is never defined. A player has "talent" because he plays better and wins. And then people say he played better and won because he had "talent". It's a circular definition. But outside of Stephano, there is literally nobody on the top Starcraft stages that doesn't practice more than any of their peers, consistently. And even outliers like Stephano have not proven that they can maintain their level for any length of time. I'd be really curious to see how Stephano fares over time.
I have a masters in psychology and I just have to say how impossible it is to define expertise and how impossible it is to empirically test expertise. 10,000 hours is a totally arbitrary benchmark. Read Ericsson A. K., & Smith, J. Toward a General Theory of Expertise. "Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: an Introduction"
|
On November 21 2011 14:48 Jeremy Reimer wrote:
But outside of Stephano, there is literally nobody on the top Starcraft stages that doesn't practice more than any of their peers, consistently. And even outliers like Stephano have not proven that they can maintain their level for any length of time. I'd be really curious to see how Stephano fares over time.
Well, there's Moon, who's been full-time War3 since pretty much ... whenever he stated he was going to focus completely on the WCG some months ago. He just got 2nd at the PPSL without practicing much SC2, then immediately flew back to Korea and beat Lyn to take first in the WCG Korea War3 qualifiers a day after the PPSL ended.
That said, even Moon was known for his absolutely insane practice habits in War3, where he'd just practice straight through the night (and day); at some point, I'm pretty sure he was putting in 16-18 hours a day. Talent definitely plays a role in how well players perform -- some people just multitask better than others, some people are more meticulous and detail-oriented than others by nature -- but you can't get to the top, top, top level without both talent and practice.
|
On November 21 2011 15:02 Qaatar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 14:42 babylon wrote:On November 21 2011 14:33 Kelethius wrote:On November 21 2011 14:25 EchoZ wrote:
Yeah! Leenock :D/
How did Haypro beat Nestea and MVP?
HOLY CRAP i didnt even realize that.... Haypro beats select, kiwi, and nestea and takes a game off mvp. Wow NesTea vs. Haypro wasn't shown, but the MVP vs. Haypro series was pretty damn good. And the game he took off MVP was in a macro game. He could've actually won the series 2-0 but made a botched counter-attack in the second game, and in the third-game he was soooooo ahead after breaking a sick contain from MVP (good god, I thought Haypro was dead there, but he broke through), but didn't go for the throat when he needed to (when MVP had like no army left but a few Thors). Sadness. He definitely could've beat MVP though. Such sick performance by Haypro this MLG. Sick sick sick. I don't understand why MVP doesn't play 'MMA-style' TvZ more often. The one recent time he showcased that style, against Annyeong in G3 of the WCG, it was absolutely devastating. Instead, he tries to play passively all the time with the goal of outmacro'ing the Zerg mixed with some hellion harass. He only wins these games due to his game sense, because there are plenty of times where the Zerg outmacros him, but MVP pulls off a brilliant timing and wins in the end. Terrans will never outmacro a decent Zerg, period. When his game sense fails him, like in G1 against Leenock...well, we saw what happened. It's like he's trying to copy Light's style of TvZ in BW, but this isn't BW, and he isn't Light. -_-
He has said in an interview the reason he doesn't like to go bio is it takes more apm which hurts his wrists more. It was awhile ago when he said that but he said he goes mech because it doesn't hurt his wrists as much.
And I disagree terran's can out macro zerg period :D
|
On November 21 2011 15:00 zZygote wrote:
Well, it's looking good for me then. I have this much time I can put full-time into SC2. December 17 (Saturday, final semester) to May 16, 2012 (starting Bachelor's) if I hit GM or get a contract, I'll quit school for a year if I can maintain. 180 days (6 months approx.) 12 hours each day, and all the time I had from SC:BW and 2 seasons of SC2, I'm pretty close to around 5000hrs by the end.
But in all honesty, it's just not possible for anyone, to become a pro. A 16yr old champion was just born, and he's not the first of his kind also, think of Flash or Jaedong. Innate talent definitely has a role in becoming a successful player.
Any aspects of his genetics that would lead to a 16 year old champion being "just born" are utterly insignificant next to the mountain of practice he must have put in. The kid plays more than his peers right now at a professional level, and that kind of dedication doesn't just happen. Someone who's willing to grind that many games at 16 would have been willing to grind unusually high amounts of games at 15, 14, 13... all the way back to whenever he started playing games. Behavior like that is trained and learned as a child is raised, just as it was in the cases of the musicians and athletes examined in Gladwell's book spoken about a few posts ago.
Isn't this always the conclusion people come to when the argument comes up about why Koreans beat the rest of the world in Starcraft? That their culture just fosters more dedication to gaming than Western culture does? Korea is an outlier among nations in this regard, and it would seem that Leenock is an outlier among Koreans. It's not an outlandish concept, and it doesn't mean he just hit the genetic lottery. He worked hard for a very long time, and he's gotten very good very early because of it.
|
|
|
On November 21 2011 15:08 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 14:48 Jeremy Reimer wrote:
.........
But outside of Stephano, there is literally nobody on the top Starcraft stages that doesn't practice more than any of their peers, consistently. And even outliers like Stephano have not proven that they can maintain their level for any length of time. I'd be really curious to see how Stephano fares over time. too long to quote. Then may I ask, how would you explain some genius like Testla? or talents like absolute pitch?
Tesla spent more hours than any of his peers thinking about the specific parts of science that most interested him. Einstein did as well (he was thinking about the problems involved in traveling at the speed of light when he was 16, for example)
I have read articles about absolute pitch and it is by no means decided whether it is based on musical training or is some sort of genetic happy accident. It may be both. Still, it's not like having absolute pitch has any effect on whether or not you will be a good musician. All the "talents" that are part of being a good musician are ones that must be trained. The vast majority of professional musicians do not have absolute pitch, and there are people with absolute pitch who never become professional musicians.
I don't dispute the fact that there are genetic variations among people. There are. I just don't see how there is evidence that these differences actually matter compared to the very measurable effect of sheer hours of dedicated practice. I'm open to counter-arguments, though! I just want these arguments to be based on actual scientific facts and research.
I have a masters in psychology and I just have to say how impossible it is to define expertise and how impossible it is to empirically test expertise. 10,000 hours is a totally arbitrary benchmark.
Well, it's not, actually, the 10,000 hours was measured, as the study showed. They didn't just pull the number out of thin air. They counted the number of hours of training by the top students.
I agree that it is difficult to define expertise, but what I'm saying is this: I would prefer arguments that came out of actual statistical studies rather than handwaving. Maybe the numbers aren't perfect, but surely they are better than no numbers at all?
|
I missed almost the entire mlg cause of work but holy fuck leenock's run was super impressive. Can someone recap the final games? The last 5-10 pages were all discussing talent vs practice -.-
|
On November 21 2011 14:48 Jeremy Reimer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 14:05 DontLoseSightOfIt wrote:
People who think hard work is all thats needed to be at the top, Im sorry to say, but they simply do not have talents. That is why they want to think they have what it takes to reach the top, purely by practising billions of times.
In reality though, talents are important too. In football, Cristiano Ronaldo is an example of hard work AND talent. Talent is nothing without hard work, but that does not mean talent isn't needed. You need both of course. But going back on topic....
An example would be, if you have talent and hard work = C.Ronaldo
If you hard work a lot and practice a lot = David Villa or someone else.
The thing is, it is just as easy to say that "People who think that talent is what is needed to be at the top, I'm sorry to say, but they simply do not put in hard work. That's why they want to think that they could never be at the top, even if they practiced billions of times." For your example of Ronaldo and David Villa, do you know how much Ronaldo practiced? Including all the hours he practiced as a child? Do you know if it's more or less than David Villa? Whenever things like this are measured, there tends to be a correlation between the amount of practice and the results. That's where the magic "10,000 hours" comes from: Show nested quote +
In one study conducted by Psychologist K. Anders Ericcson done at the Academy of Music in Berlin three groups of violinists were studied. The first group had stars pupils, the second had good students and the third had students who would probably never play professionally. The groups started out at the age of 5 and in the beginning they all practiced roughly the same amount of time for the first few years. Around eight years of age the difference in commitment to the craft started to become obvious.
Here are the numbers of hours per week and by age practiced by those who would go on to become stars:
5 years old = 2-3 hours
9 years old = 6 hours
12 years old = 8 hours
14 years old = 16 hours
21 years old = 30 hours
By the age of 21 the elite violinists had each practiced a total of 10,000 hours. Ericcson went on to look at professional pianists and found the same to be true. By the age of twenty, the amateur pianists had logged a total of 2,000 hours of practice while the elite pianists had reach the 10,000 hour mark.
In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell puts forth the premise that to be an expert in your field requires a devotion to one’s craft for at least 10,000 hours. Gladwell and other elites cited in the book challenge the premise that genius or being gifted is a matter of innate talent. In fact, closer analysis of success stories prove out that the element of innate talent plays a lesser role in achieving expert status than one might think.
Gladwell also points out something quite fascinating and worth remembering. In his study, Ericcson didn’t find any ‘naturals’ or prodigies who effortlessly mastered their instrument. Neither did Ericcson find ordinary people who worked harder than anyone else and yet never made it to the top.
(My emphasis) So, okay, this is just for musicians, and maybe it doesn't carry over to other things. But then just a few posts above mine, someone posted a statistic of Leenock practicing literally four times as much as anyone else in a single Starcraft 2 season. At the very very top, other issues can come into play, such as psychological issues and mind games. This is what makes sports entertaining. The outcome isn't predetermined. There is also the large factor of luck, which can't be disregarded. But this has nothing to do with "talent". The main problem I have with the word "talent" is that it is never defined. A player has "talent" because he plays better and wins. And then people say he played better and won because he had "talent". It's a circular definition. But outside of Stephano, there is literally nobody on the top Starcraft stages that doesn't practice more than any of their peers, consistently. And even outliers like Stephano have not proven that they can maintain their level for any length of time. I'd be really curious to see how Stephano fares over time.
Noone masters anything as complex as an instrument effortlessly. Naturally people who are world class at something have put in countless hours to be good at what they do. All this doesn't disprove the concept of talent in the slightest (although it does question the concept of genius).
Talent isn't a circular definition because it's not tied to results at all. Rather, talent is aptitude. Give two people the same training in something and you'll usually find one of them to be better than the other. This difference in skill - unexplainable by the amount of work put in - is due to what we call talent. The simplest example I can think of is height. If you give 1000 people the same training in Basketball, the taller 50% is going to be better than the shorter. Height IS a talent in Basketball.
Now, anyone who ever makes it to the top in his field will tell you there's an enormous amount of work involved. Noone's denying that. However, to suggest that every person could be Kasparov in Chess, Rachmaninoff at the piano or Flash in Starcraft is ridiculous.
|
On November 21 2011 15:13 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 15:02 Qaatar wrote:On November 21 2011 14:42 babylon wrote:On November 21 2011 14:33 Kelethius wrote:On November 21 2011 14:25 EchoZ wrote:
Yeah! Leenock :D/
How did Haypro beat Nestea and MVP?
HOLY CRAP i didnt even realize that.... Haypro beats select, kiwi, and nestea and takes a game off mvp. Wow NesTea vs. Haypro wasn't shown, but the MVP vs. Haypro series was pretty damn good. And the game he took off MVP was in a macro game. He could've actually won the series 2-0 but made a botched counter-attack in the second game, and in the third-game he was soooooo ahead after breaking a sick contain from MVP (good god, I thought Haypro was dead there, but he broke through), but didn't go for the throat when he needed to (when MVP had like no army left but a few Thors). Sadness. He definitely could've beat MVP though. Such sick performance by Haypro this MLG. Sick sick sick. I don't understand why MVP doesn't play 'MMA-style' TvZ more often. The one recent time he showcased that style, against Annyeong in G3 of the WCG, it was absolutely devastating. Instead, he tries to play passively all the time with the goal of outmacro'ing the Zerg mixed with some hellion harass. He only wins these games due to his game sense, because there are plenty of times where the Zerg outmacros him, but MVP pulls off a brilliant timing and wins in the end. Terrans will never outmacro a decent Zerg, period. When his game sense fails him, like in G1 against Leenock...well, we saw what happened. It's like he's trying to copy Light's style of TvZ in BW, but this isn't BW, and he isn't Light. -_- He has said in an interview the reason he doesn't like to go bio is it takes more apm which hurts his wrists more. It was awhile ago when he said that but he said he goes mech because it doesn't hurt his wrists as much. And I disagree terran's can out macro zerg period :D
I must have missed that interview. Damn, that's depressing.
In BW, sure, T's can outmacro Z's. Well, I guess I only watch Light and Flash play T, so my view might be skewed. In SC2? Without heavy econ damage in the early game, it IS impossible, assuming the Zerg is decent at macro. In the late game, MVP can roast all the drones he wants, but as long as the Zerg has 5+ hatches and a decent bank, it really doesn't matter.
|
Holy shit, I went to bed after the semi-finals. Should've stayed up, epic results indeed
|
OH MY GOOOOD!!!
In BW, sure, T's can outmacro Z's. Well, I guess I only watch Light and Flash play T, so my view might be skewed. In SC2? Without heavy econ damage in the early game, it IS impossible, assuming the Zerg is decent at macro. In the late game, MVP can roast all the drones he wants, but as long as the Zerg has 5+ hatches and a decent bank, it really doesn't matter.
|
im glad nani showed great results dont really care about all the drama.great job nani
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
i guess i better don't comment on the results - too upsetting.
|
Talent isn't a circular definition because it's not tied to results at all. Rather, talent is aptitude. Give two people the same training in something and you'll usually find one of them to be better than the other. This difference in skill - unexplainable by the amount of work put in - is due to what we call talent. The simplest example I can think of is height. If you give 1000 people the same training in Basketball, the taller 50% is going to be better than the shorter. Height IS a talent in Basketball.
Sure, I'll give you height. It's an obvious advantage in basketball (Muggsy Bogues notwithstanding) because of the very design of the game.
But for games that aren't designed that way, you can't point at one simple genetic statistic and say that it is the source of innate ability.
For most sports, the people who make it to the top leagues are those who put in the most practice as children and young adults. There are no examples of people who didn't put in those hours who nonetheless made it to that level. An interesting example is a study done of junior hockey players (see this link: http://www.socialproblemindex.ualberta.ca/RelAgeMinorHockeyCJBS.pdf )
Barnsley, Thompson, and Barnsley (1985) reported on the month of birth of hockey
players from the National Hockey League (NHL) and two of Canada's m a i n' 'Junior A'' professional development leagues, the Western Hockey League (WHL) and
the Ontario Hockey League (OHL). That study demonstrated an extremely strong
linear relationship between the month of birth (from January to December) and
the proportion of players in the leagues studied. The extent of this phenomenon
can best be understood when it is realized that approximately four times more
players in the WHL and the OHL were born in the first quarter of the year (January,
February, and March) than were born in the last quarter (October, November,
December). This trend followed through to the NHL.
If "innate talent" were so important, why would this be the case? It's a stretch to think that there is some sort of hockey gene that only occurs in people born in the first three months of the year (in fact there is no scientific basis for this whatsoever)
Instead, the answer turns out to be more pedestrian:
This explanation is based on the fact that when children are age grouped, the
older children in the age group have a developmental advantage over the younger
children in the same age grouping. As a result, when these children play hockey
together, the older children (January, February, March birthdates), who are generally bigger, stronger, and better co-ordinated than the younger children (October,
November, December birthdates), do much better. By doing better, these older
children achieve more success, receive greater rewards for their endeavours, and
thus are more likely to remain in minor hockey for a number of years.
The other thing, of course, is that the older children have by definition practiced more than the younger ones in each age group. This by itself suggests that practice is far more important than innate talent.
However, to suggest that every person could be Kasparov in Chess, Rachmaninoff at the piano or Flash in Starcraft is ridiculous.
I am not suggesting this. Every person can't be the best by definition-- there are only so many spots available at the top in any event. There is only room for a single person to be considered the best in their field, by definition.
Also, every person won't put in the kind of hours that those people did in their respective fields. They just won't. You have to love what you do more than anything else in the world to put in those kind of insane hours. Most people don't care enough. You also have to have the opportunity. Whether it's hockey in Canada or Starcraft in Korea, some countries have more opportunity for young people to have access to the best practice environments.
|
Wow terran's doing so bad vs zerg including Korean terrans.
There are almost no foreign terrans in the championship bracket.
|
On November 21 2011 15:22 Jeremy Reimer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 15:08 ETisME wrote:On November 21 2011 14:48 Jeremy Reimer wrote:
.........
But outside of Stephano, there is literally nobody on the top Starcraft stages that doesn't practice more than any of their peers, consistently. And even outliers like Stephano have not proven that they can maintain their level for any length of time. I'd be really curious to see how Stephano fares over time. too long to quote. Then may I ask, how would you explain some genius like Testla? or talents like absolute pitch? Tesla spent more hours than any of his peers thinking about the specific parts of science that most interested him. Einstein did as well (he was thinking about the problems involved in traveling at the speed of light when he was 16, for example) I have read articles about absolute pitch and it is by no means decided whether it is based on musical training or is some sort of genetic happy accident. It may be both. Still, it's not like having absolute pitch has any effect on whether or not you will be a good musician. All the "talents" that are part of being a good musician are ones that must be trained. The vast majority of professional musicians do not have absolute pitch, and there are people with absolute pitch who never become professional musicians. I don't dispute the fact that there are genetic variations among people. There are. I just don't see how there is evidence that these differences actually matter compared to the very measurable effect of sheer hours of dedicated practice. I'm open to counter-arguments, though! I just want these arguments to be based on actual scientific facts and research.
While I agree with your point about statistic of research and facts should be used for arguments, I think it is quite clear that Tesla had used his talent to achieve something that I would call "ahead of his time".
He had the visual mind thinking ability that led him to say the experiments of Thomas Edison were time and resource wasting.
He also produced some of the most complicated/advanced inventions that did not require him to make any blue prints.
On the topic of absolute pitch however, I do agree that it doesn't help you to become a better musician. My bad, didn't really read the whole quotes and thought you were literally saying there is no talent.
Through, I feel that you are using the term "talent" that is too similar to "ability".
|
On November 21 2011 14:05 DontLoseSightOfIt wrote:
People who think hard work is all thats needed to be at the top, Im sorry to say, but they simply do not have talents. That is why they want to think they have what it takes to reach the top, purely by practising billions of times.
In reality though, talents are important too. In football, Cristiano Ronaldo is an example of hard work AND talent. Talent is nothing without hard work, but that does not mean talent isn't needed. You need both of course. But going back on topic....
An example would be, if you have talent and hard work = C.Ronaldo
If you hard work a lot and practice a lot = David Villa or someone else.
Cmon its easy to see some people are born with talent.....
If you can't see how this works then don't worry.
Btw this thread has turned from Providence MLG to talent thread to Australian thread, haha.
SC2 relies far more on hard work and practice than talent.
It's not like basketball where slow lanky bald guys can just drudge around and dunk a ball because they only need to jump 1 feet high, or american football where people who can dash like they were on stim because they have a ton of explosive power from all their training and squatting 450 pounds.
|
On November 21 2011 15:40 Jeremy Reimer wrote:Show nested quote +
Talent isn't a circular definition because it's not tied to results at all. Rather, talent is aptitude. Give two people the same training in something and you'll usually find one of them to be better than the other. This difference in skill - unexplainable by the amount of work put in - is due to what we call talent. The simplest example I can think of is height. If you give 1000 people the same training in Basketball, the taller 50% is going to be better than the shorter. Height IS a talent in Basketball.
Sure, I'll give you height. It's an obvious advantage in basketball (Muggsy Bogues notwithstanding) because of the very design of the game. But for games that aren't designed that way, you can't point at one simple genetic statistic and say that it is the source of innate ability. For most sports, the people who make it to the top leagues are those who put in the most practice as children and young adults. There are no examples of people who didn't put in those hours who nonetheless made it to that level. An interesting example is a study done of junior hockey players (see this link: http://www.socialproblemindex.ualberta.ca/RelAgeMinorHockeyCJBS.pdf ) Show nested quote +
Barnsley, Thompson, and Barnsley (1985) reported on the month of birth of hockey
players from the National Hockey League (NHL) and two of Canada's m a i n' 'Junior A'' professional development leagues, the Western Hockey League (WHL) and
the Ontario Hockey League (OHL). That study demonstrated an extremely strong
linear relationship between the month of birth (from January to December) and
the proportion of players in the leagues studied. The extent of this phenomenon
can best be understood when it is realized that approximately four times more
players in the WHL and the OHL were born in the first quarter of the year (January,
February, and March) than were born in the last quarter (October, November,
December). This trend followed through to the NHL.
If "innate talent" were so important, why would this be the case? It's a stretch to think that there is some sort of hockey gene that only occurs in people born in the first three months of the year (in fact there is no scientific basis for this whatsoever) Instead, the answer turns out to be more pedestrian: Show nested quote +
This explanation is based on the fact that when children are age grouped, the
older children in the age group have a developmental advantage over the younger
children in the same age grouping. As a result, when these children play hockey
together, the older children (January, February, March birthdates), who are generally bigger, stronger, and better co-ordinated than the younger children (October,
November, December birthdates), do much better. By doing better, these older
children achieve more success, receive greater rewards for their endeavours, and
thus are more likely to remain in minor hockey for a number of years.
The other thing, of course, is that the older children have by definition practiced more than the younger ones in each age group. This by itself suggests that practice is far more important than innate talent. Show nested quote +
However, to suggest that every person could be Kasparov in Chess, Rachmaninoff at the piano or Flash in Starcraft is ridiculous.
I am not suggesting this. Every person can't be the best by definition-- there are only so many spots available at the top in any event. There is only room for a single person to be considered the best in their field, by definition. Also, every person won't put in the kind of hours that those people did in their respective fields. They just won't. You have to love what you do more than anything else in the world to put in those kind of insane hours. Most people don't care enough. You also have to have the opportunity. Whether it's hockey in Canada or Starcraft in Korea, some countries have more opportunity for young people to have access to the best practice environments.
You're quoting studies that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Noone's arguing that practice is much more important in the grand scheme of things than talent, only that talent exists and is very relevant when we look at professionals. No, innate ability isn't too important when we're comparing a Sc2 professional and someone who just completed his placement matches, but it's extremely relevant when we compare professionals, players who all play all day every day. Now, some of the differences in skill between professionals can still be attributed to practice (ie. the Koreans vs foreigner divide is partly explained by Koreans practicing more), but practice time alone doesn't explain the vast difference in skill between different pros who practice basically the same amount, live in the same team house and have access to the same practice partners. And this is where talent comes in (along with other factors like mental strength).
And if you really want to go the scientific way, there's a plethora of research on all kinds of innate ability, IQ being the first that comes to mind. I appreciate that you're trying to point out how important hard work is - and it is -, but if you want to deny the existence of innate ability, you're just... wrong, both according to conventional wisdom and scientific research.
|
Naniwa won MLG GI and came 2nd in providence tourney. A absolutely amazing performance looking at all the top names that was there. He just claimed the nr1 spot as the best non korean sc2 player in the world.
Epic job Naniwa!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
