Bobby Fisher won his first US Championships at 14 against people who had been playing chess longer than he had been alive. Suggesting they didn't want it more, or practice more than some kid is silly.
"We can't on one hand believe in the plasticity and retrainability of the mind, while simultaneously believing that speed is something only a few are born with."
Sure we can, the initial orientation of neurons differs between people, so some people need less "plasticity and retrainability" to be good at a task. Plasticity is physical characteristic like height and varies between people.
Initial speed usually isn't that important, but speed of learning is important and makes the difference between possible and impossible within a human lifetime.
I think there's a probabalistic argument I'm making that's more in line with the article.
Yes - there will be 10x-ers. And that group will have a 10x-er iside it, and so on given exponential dropoff of frequency of talent. Bobby Fisher is a few std dev above even the best, perhaps.
Generally speaking, "You can do anything you want, but wanting (enough, and naturally) is the hardest part" might need a three standard deviation limit.
Have you heard the phrase: Being average among those who practice makes you 9X% among the population? I think that's what I'm saying - you can be a top performer if you dedicate yourself, especially early enough, but almost nobody will.
I agree with you. I don’t think I’m naturally gifted at much (I’m just average), but I was taught stubborn hard work pretty early on. Unfortunately it took me until my 20s to figure out I could be athletic if I applied that hard work. I could also be good at programming doing the same. I’ve met people who are truly gifted and it’s amazing, but I’m pretty decent at the things I worked hard at.
"Initial speed usually isn't that important, but speed of learning is important and makes the difference between possible and impossible within a human lifetime."
Likely so, but is suggest that personality, drive and motivation are also very important factors. I know from experience that stuff I had little interest in as a youngster and that I've still little in I still know little about.
Yes, my interests have grown and broadened over the years but simply I regard some stuff so irrelevant to my life that it's not worth a second thought and I am much better off applying my limited number of neurons to matters of greater importance and enjoyment.
Of course, no one has the luxury of just learning about what one finds interesting and or enjoyable, life's knocks and experiences along with utilitarian-like imperatives force one to learn stuff they'd rather not know about.
"We can't on one hand believe in the plasticity and retrainability of the mind, while simultaneously believing that speed is something only a few are born with."
Sure we can, the initial orientation of neurons differs between people, so some people need less "plasticity and retrainability" to be good at a task. Plasticity is physical characteristic like height and varies between people.
Initial speed usually isn't that important, but speed of learning is important and makes the difference between possible and impossible within a human lifetime.