Chris Olson SSC: Are You Training Effectively for Your Sport? Part 3

[Martin Shenfield]

This is exactly what I thought.

You haven't actually read any of the studies or books and have nothing to refute any of the actual science.

Instead, you have guesses and conjecture.

I don't deal with those when it comes to studying how experts become experts.

Our Olympic Australian female breakdancer is an expert in her field. Has a PhD on breakdancing. Only problem is she sucks. She's gone viral for being pathetic.

Armchair experts. Those who can't do teach.

You've got to be some kind of special to not know that some kids display physical attributes that are more useful to athletic endeavours than others. My 1 year old son has been throwing balls as soon as he could and now he's walking he's kicking them too, no encouragement provided other than having balls laying around. My 5 year old daughter is a pipsqueak, she's actually pretty quick but physically a lot smaller than everyone else.

It's ok to be wrong. You just need to spend another 9000 hours on this and you might get there in the end.

[Yngvi]

This is exactly what I thought.

You haven't actually read any of the studies or books and have nothing to refute any of the actual science.

Instead, you have guesses and conjecture.

I don't deal with those when it comes to studying how experts become experts.

Nor do I want to waste my time reading these books, Jay.

Can you define "actual science" for me?
Do you even know what the word means?

[Jason Donaldson]

This is exactly what I thought.

You haven't actually read any of the studies or books and have nothing to refute any of the actual science.

Instead, you have guesses and conjecture.

I don't deal with those when it comes to studying how experts become experts.

Why is it so hard to fathom that phenomena observed for pretty much all of human history suggests that some people are born with different abilities? The idea of children being born as tabulae rasae (blank slates) hasn't even been accepted in associated sciences (or "sciences") my knowledge for quite some time. If we can observe that some human beings inherently have better SVJs than others, why is it so hard to imagine that it's true of skill propensities?

Pretty much anyone who's been around any number of young children has observed different natural proclivities. Yes, a child that grows up around people throwing and catching balls will get better at it faster and more reliably, but different starting baselines are very much observable. This has been the general observation throughout history. The fact is, Jay, you are the one making the claims against the generally observed phenomena. You are the one who needs the evidence against it, not the other way around.

As I understand it, Dr. Ericsson is the one who came up with the 10,000 hours of practice number, studying violinists. Fine - world-class violinists put in 10K hard hours of practice to get there. Does that mean that ANYONE putting in that time will be as good? Does that mean that just anyone CAN put in that many meaningful hours? Yet the overwhelming whole of human experience shows that there is still some element of natural ability there. Just because one element is necessary doesn't mean that it is sufficient.

[mkm5]

Our Olympic Australian female breakdancer is an expert in her field. Has a PhD on breakdancing. Only problem is she sucks. She's gone viral for being pathetic.

Armchair experts. Those who can't do teach.

You've got to be some kind of special to not know that some kids display physical attributes that are more useful to athletic endeavours than others. My 1 year old son has been throwing balls as soon as he could and now he's walking he's kicking them too, no encouragement provided other than having balls laying around. My 5 year old daughter is a pipsqueak, she's actually pretty quick but physically a lot smaller than everyone else.

It's ok to be wrong. You just need to spend another 9000 hours on this and you might get there in the end.

Yes, some kids display athletic behavior very young.

My grandson has been a "climber" since around 18 months old. He's very creative in finding ways to climb up on things.

Last time I visited, I was helping my daughter in the kitchen and took my eyes off the little critter for a minute. When I looked over to see what he was doing, he was just standing on top of the dining room table, and looking at me as if saying "what's the big deal?!"

[Satch12879]

Why is it so hard to fathom that phenomena observed for pretty much all of human history suggests that some people are born with different abilities? The idea of children being born as tabulae rasae (blank slates) hasn't even been accepted in associated sciences (or "sciences") my knowledge for quite some time. If we can observe that some human beings inherently have better SVJs than others, why is it so hard to imagine that it's true of skill propensities?

Pretty much anyone who's been around any number of young children has observed different natural proclivities. Yes, a child that grows up around people throwing and catching balls will get better at it faster and more reliably, but different starting baselines are very much observable. This has been the general observation throughout history. The fact is, Jay, you are the one making the claims against the generally observed phenomena. You are the one who needs the evidence against it, not the other way around.

As I understand it, Dr. Ericsson is the one who came up with the 10,000 hours of practice number, studying violinists. Fine - world-class violinists put in 10K hard hours of practice to get there. Does that mean that ANYONE putting in that time will be as good? Does that mean that just anyone CAN put in that many meaningful hours? Yet the overwhelming whole of human experience shows that there is still some element of natural ability there. Just because one element is necessary doesn't mean that it is sufficient.

The physical genius attribute applies to all things, including playing a musical instrument. There are musicians, virtuosos, who can work out mechanical problems regarding technique almost intuitively. These are the ones who can physically play at an orchestral level in their teens. There are others who put in as close to 10,000 hours as you can in a lifetime and never approach that level, stumbling over the same errors over and over again.

[Mark Rippetoe]

There are others who put in as close to 10,000 hours as you can in a lifetime and never approach that level, stumbling over the same errors over and over again.

I am one of these people.

[Jason Donaldson]

The physical genius attribute applies to all things, including playing a musical instrument. There are musicians, virtuosos, who can work out mechanical problems regarding technique almost intuitively. These are the ones who can physically play at an orchestral level in their teens. There are others who put in as close to 10,000 hours as you can in a lifetime and never approach that level, stumbling over the same errors over and over again.

I am one of these people.

This is indeed one of the great things about strength training - it's one of the few areas in life where the "you can do anything you put your mind to" lie were all taught growing up approaches truth, a point I appreciate from Dr. Sullivan's "Training and the Noble Lie" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1H0RrHD5Go