BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Your favorite books and links
Post Reply
User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jennypenny »

The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance, by David Epstein
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-E ... 1591845114

A couple of articles about the book:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... Great.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/boo ... e13575094/

Epstein discussed several genetic traits that can help or hinder success in sports. His main motivation for writing the book seemed to be a critical examination of the 10,000 rule first popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Gladwell suggested that the key to success (‘mastery’) in any field is constant, deliberate practice, with 10,000 hours being the loose marker at which mastery generally occurs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10000_hour_rule

Epstein looked at how long it takes chess players to obtain the ranks of master and grandmaster as a way to confirm the validity of the 10,000 rule. The key point (I thought) he made here was that looking at the average (10,000 hours) didn’t tell you much. Some players only took 3,000 hours to reach the level of master, where some logged 25,000 and never achieved mastery. He discussed how hard it is to substantiate the 10,000 rule by examining successful people in different fields, because a lot of self-selection has already taken place.

Epstein moved on to genetics, discussing different physical characteristics (some obvious, some not) that influence athletic performance. Some of the outward physical characteristics you may or may not know like a longer wing span is more important than height to all but the tallest basketball players, good eyesight (actually great eyesight) helps produce the most consistent batters in baseball, and long, thin limbs are advantageous to distance runners. In this section, he also focused on the importance of experience and muscle memory. He gave the example of MLB hitters being unable to hit a softball pitched by Jenny Finch. Epstein suggested it was mostly because they had no experience, and since hitting a pitch requires interpreting the movements of the pitcher and ball almost instantaneously, baseball players generally have no frame of reference in softball.

The second layer of physical characteristics he examined were less sport-specific. Many people have heard of fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscles. The ratio of those muscles determines whether a person is more suited to speed or endurance sports. The book discussed other measurable traits like baseline aerobic capacity and responsiveness to training. He refers to this as the Talent of Trainability in Chapter 5. Tests measured whether people had a higher baseline aerobic capacity and also how significantly it would improve with training. People who started out with a higher baseline and also responded well to training would obviously make the best athletes (or at least be the best candidates). People who had low baselines and were genetically predisposed to respond poorly to training were, as he put it, probably not destined to be runners. I found the genetic component in the response to training interesting. Epstein gave an example from his own life. He has a low baseline but responds well to training. A teammate on his college track team had a high baseline. They would do identical workouts during the season, but Epstein would respond more positively to the training. It gave the appearance he was working harder even though they were doing the same amount of training. He suggested that sometimes athletes who are deemed ‘head cases’ might actually be athletes who have a high baseline and therefore, show little improvement with training.

The third layer of characteristics Epstein discussed were detailed genetic traits like the baseline level and type of hemoglobin people possessed. This is where the book was most detailed. It had to be really, because this is where race and ethnicity came up. People toss around statements like ‘blacks are better runners’ or ‘whites are better swimmers’ but Epstein shows that those statements are so generalized as to be meaningless. Epstein dedicated a few chapters in the middle of the book to the validity of the idea that race gives some advantage in sports. The short answer is that it can, but it’s not that simple. Race is too general a determination. Epstein points out that as a race, blacks are much more diverse than other races, so to lump them together is inaccurate. Where a person is from, more than their race, is much more important to future athletic performance. The geography of the region they come from has a much larger influence. People from western Africa are much better sprinters, but people from eastern Africa are much better distance runners. He detailed how the different influences of those regions (everything from the prevalence of malaria to having to run to school) affected how their bodies developed. Some of the evidence was a little weak, or to be more fair, not yet substantiated, but it clearly showed that where a person is from is the most important factor. Kenyans aren’t good distance runners because they are black, but because they are from Kenya, if that makes sense. (Epstein goes into much more detail, so if this area interests you, I recommend reading that part of the book.)

In the end, Epstein goes out of his way to emphasize that it’s really a combination of nature and nurture that produces great athletes. Access to sports is also a big influence, which is mostly an economic factor but sometimes also tradition. He talks about Usain Bolt and the Jamaican running tradition, and a skier from near the arctic circle, to emphasize these points. I agree with him, but the book left me wanting more. I wish he had done a chapter on which sports relied more on talent and which on mastery. Obviously, basketball players have a huge advantage over other players with increased height and wing span. His evidence also suggests that when it comes to skills like hitting a baseball or returning a serve in tennis, practice might be more important. This made me wonder if there were certain sports that were more suited to potential athletes who did not possess any extraordinary or obvious physical talents.


Discussion

I’m willing to discuss anything anyone wants to discuss from the book. I found it fascinating and had trouble deciding what to focus on in my discussion questions.

1. Is it a good idea to test people when they are young to see where there genetic talents lie? Do you wish you had been tested young? Would have you played a sport or switched sports if it showed a particular talent?

2. Same question, but as an adult. Would you want genetic testing? The reason I wanted to read this book is because I wanted to know if 10,000 hours were necessary to achieve real success in a chosen field. If someone retires at 40 or 50, does that mean they only have enough time left to master one or two things? Is it useful to know what your body is best suited for, and to choose accordingly? Would you switch activities or try something new because of the results of genetic testing?

3. (bonus question from the paranoid prepper) Would you be willing to be tested even though someone else (employer, insurer) might find out? I know (in theory) they don’t check now, but what about decades from now?

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jennypenny »

Oops, forgot to post my own answers to the questions.

1. Is it a good idea to test people when they are young to see where there genetic talents lie? Do you wish you had been tested young? Would have you played a sport or switched sports if it showed a particular talent?

I’ll admit, I got the tape measure out as soon as I had read the first few chapters to measure everyone in the family. (Turns out that DH is 6’5” but has a 7’ wing span. *sigh* A missed opportunity.) I also wondered about their choice of sports and which of the traits Epstein discussed they seemed to possess.

I’m of two minds about this. Obviously, it’s helpful to know what you are best suited for. We knew our kids would be tall, so we never suggested sports like gymnastics. Is it any different to do the same with physical traits that you can't eyeball, but require a test to determine? I’m not sure. If you put a kid in a sport in which they are more likely to succeed, will they become more confident because of early success? Or should their interests take precedence, because you want them to be more independent and learn to make up their own minds instead of following some pre-determined path? Is early struggle better than early success?


2. Same question, but as an adult. Would you want genetic testing? The reason I wanted to read this book is because I wanted to know if 10,000 hours were necessary to achieve real success in a chosen field. If someone retires at 40 or 50, does that mean they only have enough time left to master one or two things? Is it useful to know what your body is best suited for, and to choose accordingly? Would you switch activities or try something new because of the results of genetic testing?

As an adult, I’m much more interested in finding out what I’m capable of on every level. I don’t have the time to try a hundred things to see which I like and which I’m good at. I would love to find out which training habits would best help me maintain my desired level of fitness. To my mind, it's no different than figuring out which diet is best. It also seems like most adults don’t really like to exercise, so if people were tested to show which sports best suited them, faster results might lead to more regular exercise habits.


3. (bonus question from the paranoid prepper) Would you be willing to be tested even though someone else (employer, insurer) might find out? I know (in theory) they don’t check now, but what about decades from now?

No, which completely contradicts my answer in question #2. :lol:

sshawnn
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:17 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by sshawnn »

Warning! Sports are near and dear to me for a variety of reasons. My book review and interpretations will contain personal endeavors and family encounters. If you normally do not like what or how I write, just skip this one!

The book had some fascinating parts that just as jp said,as it linked to Outliers. I read the book a couple of months ago so forgive me if I overlook or understate information given. Epstein attempts at explaining some overbearing stereotypical traits was noble yet understated. Overall, I got the conclusion that unless one is an extreme statistical outlier, either via exposure or ability, above average athletic performance can be achieved.

I grew up in the midwest and Pete Rose was my childhood idol. Although not a nice guy nor popular politically, he would have been a GREAT chapter in the book. In short, Pete was a scrawny, abused kid who showed very little athletic ability at a young age. His father (although a horrible "family" man) was a dedicated baseball player well after his prime and played baseball every chance he got. He played in adult leagues at home, he travelled, he coached, he did anything he could to be around baseball. Little Pete idolized this part of his dad and mimicked him every chance he got. Many baseball fans know the folklore of Pete repeatedly swinging a bat in front of a mirror to perfect his stroke. When Pete began to play baseball he was not great but he knew the game and was willing to exert what ever energy he could to succeed. Later in his life he admitted being highly driven by naysayers. Pete was simply not that good at baseball early on. He kept playing because he loved the game and wanted to be great at the game. Still today, many refer to him not by Pete, but by Charlie Hustle. On every hit ball from the batters box, he used every measure of speed or technique he could to reach first base before he could be thrown out. I have never seen measures of Pete's eyesight or physical strengths and frankly believe they would have been meager compared to his peers. Charlie Hustle succeeded because of his exposure, his will, and his hard work, his grit. He was (and still really is) a shithead and got tattled on for doing things that many other "nice" people in the game did at the time. Small change gambling for his team to win or other simultaneous games outcomes.

Some people that knew me a loooong time ago say that sports saved my life. That may be a stretch but my football,track, basketball, and baseball coaches certainly steered me in a more positive direction than I was headed at the time. They gave me structure. Structure was belief in myself, reinforcement that wants can be achieved through determination, and to never quit simply because it was hard. (They also gave me a father figure, lodging, food, and transportation from time to time.)

At a point in high school I believed that I could be a linebacker in the NFL. I really wanted to be a Tom Rathman (old 49er) style running back but thought I had a better chance on defense. I had two gifts that playing many* sports uncovered, compared to my peers. I was freakishly strong and had above average endurance. After about 6 years of many summer and fall practices and games (estimated 2500 hours of time) I began to see that I could occasionally run with the football, block and tackle with the best around me. **That strength and belief was built then but helps carry me yet today. Quick twitch fibers not given to me genetically and being only five feet nine inches tall was the undoing of my football career. No matter what training I did, I could only run a 4.9 40 yard dash (even though I could run right at a 5 minute mile :? .)I got a solid offer to play at a division 2 school and several offers to walk on at others but I saw that I had extracted what I could from the game and after consulting with many people I quit***.

On to the questions...


*
1. Children's sports today really piss me off. Starting at age 10 or so I played all three "major then" sports (and later ran track) at the appropriate seasons. This is how I uncovered what genetics talents I had worth honing. I was a decent hitter and fielder in baseball and often was in the top three in batting average becauseI molded myself from what I knew about Charlie Hustle. The truth was I wasn't that great of a hitter but I found ways to get on base and when I did, I found a way to score a run.

Through every basketball season I was the sixth man or I started if the opposing team had some good single player that the coach thought I could keep from scoring. The points I scored were offensive rebounds that I put back, seldom shooting a jump shot. I fouled out nearly every game. Seriously.

Football, explained above.

The reason that I get pissed is that there is little opportunity to play a different year round school sport for the average to above average young athlete. Travel teams and AAU teams start to form in fifth or sixth grade and kids get grouped into one sport and are essentially time restricted from others.

Without being able to participate in many sports, how can one ascertain which one they really are gifted for? I was tested for different sports through different seasons and I think it is of detriment that kids today seemed to be funneled into one sport and stay there. (Later in life....Wow, I wonder if I could have been a pro hockey player?)

Funny aside. DD age 13 and now 5'10 (always a giant among peers) was being hounded by the volleyball coach to come to their summer camp. She was obviously stereotypically placing her with good intentions. Little did she know that DD's co-ordination had not caught up with her height :lol: :lol: After a couple days at camp DD came home and said the VB coach had told her that Swim coach would be very upset if he lost her to VB :lol: So we probably got DD's sport right! She really has little interest in other sports and is turning out to be an excellent swimmer.

DS 11 is another story. He swims and is pretty good. He loves baseball and football. He has been swimming since age 5 and has not been a part of the core group of baseball and football players that he sometimes pines to be competitive with. OTOH if any of the BB of FB jumped in the pool with him they would be years behind.

So I suppose the outcome of this early channeling is improved performance. For instance, the swimming state time standards for qualification continue to drop and my son's 11-12 baseball team would probably go back in time and kick my 11-12 team's ass.

2. Is certainly an interesting concept as we all reach our early retirement. A quick answer is that I think diet is probably 5 times more important than specific train after age 40. Portions are one thing but a low inflammation diet pattern seems to be more and more important. Personally I keep trimming back foods that I can notice and feel are inflammatory to me.

3.No. Thats like an insurance company checking your credit score. It is a pre cursor to the C word that dictates social order that some here are offended by using. I like the old school rendition that I went on too long about in #1

**Partially explains why sports remain near and dear to me. Even if it was feats accomplished long ago, sports remind me that I am capable of GRIT, FLOW, DETERMINATION ect.

***I dislike "NEVER QUIT" slogans. Don't get me wrong, the gist permeates positively but there are certainly times to adjust course, abandon parts of plans etc. I just found it ironic that I mentioned sports taught me to quit.

PS at age 26 after starting a professional career and family I spent the better part of a summer training to try out for a new Arena II football team that was starting in our town. Some wisdom caught up with me and my training partner and I abandoned the try out but we were both CERTAIN that we would make the team. :lol:


Wow. the Outside magazine article is really good and more direct!

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Chad »

Unfortunately, family issues prevented me from reading this, even though I really wanted to. I'm still going to read it, but it will probably be too late for most of the discussion on here. I do have some questions though.
jennypenny wrote:...softball pitched by Jenny Finch. Epstein suggested it was mostly because they had no experience, and since hitting a pitch requires interpreting the movements of the pitcher and ball almost instantaneously, baseball players generally have no frame of reference in softball.
Did he say if anyone ever tested the female softball players vs a good major league pitcher? I think I agree that the baseball players would have no frame of reference (the ball would come out of Finch's hand much different than an overhand pitcher), but seeing the softball players struggle going against a top tier MLB pitcher would basically confirm it.
jennypenny wrote: The third layer of characteristics Epstein discussed were detailed genetic traits like the baseline level and type of hemoglobin people possessed. This is where the book was most detailed. It had to be really, because this is where race and ethnicity came up. People toss around statements like ‘blacks are better runners’ or ‘whites are better swimmers’ but Epstein shows that those statements are so generalized as to be meaningless. Epstein dedicated a few chapters in the middle of the book to the validity of the idea that race gives some advantage in sports. The short answer is that it can, but it’s not that simple. Race is too general a determination. Epstein points out that as a race, blacks are much more diverse than other races, so to lump them together is inaccurate. Where a person is from, more than their race, is much more important to future athletic performance. The geography of the region they come from has a much larger influence. People from western Africa are much better sprinters, but people from eastern Africa are much better distance runners. He detailed how the different influences of those regions (everything from the prevalence of malaria to having to run to school) affected how their bodies developed. Some of the evidence was a little weak, or to be more fair, not yet substantiated, but it clearly showed that where a person is from is the most important factor. Kenyans aren’t good distance runners because they are black, but because they are from Kenya, if that makes sense. (Epstein goes into much more detail, so if this area interests you, I recommend reading that part of the book.)
I think we are seeing this inside the US. Let's take college football geography concerning recruits (this is what I have the most information on by far).

Historically, Michigan, Texas, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were THE football powers in terms of producing tons of quality recruits. Hell, 15-20 years ago SI ran an article where they compared all the most successful recruits from every state and they picked Pennsylvania, as the top state. This is not the case now, as Pennsylvania has ZERO players in the current top 100 high school recruits for college, while Michigan only has 5 and Ohio 6. This would have been much higher in the 1980's.

The most obvious culprit is population movement from the north cold weather states to the warmer southern states and the west coast. However, these 3 states are still in the top 10 in population size, so that can't be the only big variable.

There are probably multiple variables, but one of them would seem to be the ability to play and run outside all year around. This would be roughly equivalent to the east/west runner divide in Africa. Though, that wouldn't be due to weather.

This then gets into the new field of epigenetics. Does the author discuss epigenetics at all?
Last edited by Chad on Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Chad »

jennypenny wrote:
1. Is it a good idea to test people when they are young to see where there genetic talents lie? Do you wish you had been tested young? Would have you played a sport or switched sports if it showed a particular talent?

2. Same question, but as an adult. Would you want genetic testing? The reason I wanted to read this book is because I wanted to know if 10,000 hours were necessary to achieve real success in a chosen field. If someone retires at 40 or 50, does that mean they only have enough time left to master one or two things? Is it useful to know what your body is best suited for, and to choose accordingly? Would you switch activities or try something new because of the results of genetic testing?

3. (bonus question from the paranoid prepper) Would you be willing to be tested even though someone else (employer, insurer) might find out? I know (in theory) they don’t check now, but what about decades from now?

1. I don't like the idea of a "test." We already take a lot of the fun out of sports and that would be just another way to make it like work. Plus, the best test is probably just letting them play every sport possible for a few years and it will work itself out. Now this doesn't mean you can't make some obvious conclusions (a 9th grader that's 6'2" and 220 is probably better at football than soccer) and use those to make some decisions on what someone should play. However, those should not be hard and fast decisions.

2. Absolutely. However, it appears that this would only be a small indicator, as epigenetics seems to be opening a whole other genetic can of worms.

3. It would be nice if we could get some laws passed before this happens. Though, the closer I get to FI the less I would care.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jennypenny »

Chad wrote:Unfortunately, family issues prevented me from reading this, even though I really wanted to. I'm still going to read it, but it will probably be too late for most of the discussion on here. I do have some questions though.
If you read the Outside article I linked to, you'll get the gist of it. Knowing you though, you'd probably like the book. There were a lot of other sports references he touched on that you would have found interesting.
Chad wrote:Did he say if anyone ever tested the female softball players vs a good major league pitcher? I think I agree that the baseball players would have no frame of reference (the ball would come out of Finch's hand much different than an overhand pitcher), but seeing the softball players struggle going against a top tier MLB pitcher would basically confirm it.
No, he didn't say if they'd ever tried the reverse.
Chad wrote: I think we are seeing this inside the US. Let's take college football the geography of college football recruits (this is what I have the most information on by far).

Historically, Michigan, Texas, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were THE football powers in terms of producing tons of quality recruits. Hell, 15-20 years ago SI ran article where they compared all the most successful recruits from every state and they picked Pennsylvania, as the top state ever. This is not the case now, as in the Pennsylvania has ZERO players in the current top 100 high school recruits for college, while Michigan only has 5 and Ohio 6. This would have been much higher in the 1980's.

The most obvious culprit is population movement from the north cold weather states to the warmer southern states and the west coast. However, these 3 states are still in the top 10 in population size, so that can't be the only big variable.

There are probably multiple variables, but one of them would seem to be the ability to play and run outside all year around. This would be roughly equivalent to the east/west runner divide in Africa. Though, that wouldn't be due to weather.
Those states were also economically prosperous during the same time. I think economics is a big factor. Financially stable families can afford fees and gear, better food, etc. Combine that with the football tradition that used to be prevalent at the youth level in those states, and it doesn't surprise me that they were powerhouses. (or that they aren't anymore)

I found the ethnic aspect fascinating. He was brave to address the issue at all. I also think once issues are addressed fairly and without emotional baggage, they become less explosive. (The same happened with women's sports.)

Honestly, by the time they figure it all out though, I think the issue will be moot. I know very few people who have a single ethnic background. I think that will continue to happen, and race/ethnic specific traits will disappear into the global genetic soup.

It doesn't affect most people anyway, just the elite in any sport.


This then gets into the new field of epigenetics. Does the author discuss epigenetics at all?
No. I wondered that too.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Chad »

Thanks, Jenny. Economics is a good point about the PA, OH, and MI losing their competitiveness in college football recruits. CA, FL, and TX all have much better economies than those other 3 states.

I'm definitely going to read it and hopefully bookend it with a good epigenetics book.
jennypenny wrote: Honestly, by the time they figure it all out though, I think the issue will be moot. I know very few people who have a single ethnic background. I think that will continue to happen, and race/ethnic specific traits will disappear into the global genetic soup..
You are probably right. Especially, with the US.

sshawnn
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:17 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by sshawnn »

Chad, disappointed you did not get to read as you I think you would enjoy. As above, you are obviously still a useful commentator.

I am hopeful that some of the lurking past basketball coaches, competitive swimmers and other people who have used athletics or continue to in parts of their lives still comment......


jp said, "Those states were also economically prosperous during the same time. I think economics is a big factor. Financially stable families can afford fees and gear, better food, etc. Combine that with the football tradition that used to be prevalent at the youth level in those states, and it doesn't surprise me that they were powerhouses. (or that they aren't anymore)"

Part of what I mentioned above with club sports is applicable to this statement. The applicable part being the actual cash outlay (even breaking it down to a YMOYL type equation) is astounding to the situation we find ourselves in. I regress to using our middle class ways as a descriptive example of involving our children in sports that seem efficient for them and that they enjoy. If they want to swim for a school in the future and get some renumeration for their efforts in college, that is cool. They are not going to be Olympians and my hope is that they gain some value and feeling of personal achievement from what the are doing.

...........I started to price this out item per item. Just not going to do it. It is a shitpot. If you want the exacts, PM me. It seems that my threading here is starting to deviate from the basis of what the majority of the forum (ME INCLUDED) strive for and part of the financial travesty of what youth sports can become.

I'll say that the average upper middle dual earner family that has a child that swims (most have 2 or more) devotes a good deal of their monthly budget to the sport.

When DS then 10 played youth football, There was a $70 sign up fee that included a jersey, a helmet that did not come close to fitting,(we had to buy him one because of lack of others), and some shoulder pads. The various other expensive, asked to be matching equipment was out of pocket!

We live in a suburban environment. That is on us currently for a variety of other useful/some non useful reasons.... We have to use a car and gas to get the athletes to and fro. We car pool when we can. When finitely examined, another HUGE cost.

Again reverting to my childhood, I walked to 2/3 of practices or it was directly after school and I walked or a coach would drop me and 10 other kids in the back of his truck off. I am fairly fearful of transporting a single child as a coach for fear of some litigious liability action. I remember all kinds of boosters, businesses, even the "rich" families buying equipment for our teams, having team dinners at the city park, etc etc. I simply do not see this happen anymore. Instead year round club fees rise, equipment is totally a responsibility of the participant, travel fees skyrocket as club teams travel damn near all over the country and their is less trust community between the familial participants.

More in line with the constructs of the forum and what we talk about more often, I think the rant above can be blamed on the diminishing of the middle class, closing of mom and pop type store fronts, and the lack of community that frenetic fast paced, high volume, lower margin business and living arrangements are stealing from what was a valuable establishment of youthful sport engagement 20-30 years ago.

whewww rant over H. Spencer I hope you saw that one.... 8-)

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Chad »

On a small side note, the economics of sport is probably the reason soccer is the most popular sport in the world. All you need is a ball...that's it. So, everyone has played it at some point, but I bet a lot of people haven't played real football (not tag, flag, etc.).

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jacob »

I didn't read the book, but ...

1) The question is phrased in a way that suggests that winning is the highest value, that is, winning in the sense of being #1 and not losing. However, we gotta question the value of competition. In Shinkendo we do sparring, but the sparring is collaborative, much like dancing. You don't fight to destroy your opponent, rather you fight to make him (90% are guys) look good. It is the mark of a skilled practitioner that he can make even the weakest opponent look good. (This is because one has to match engagement distances for the sword cuts and if your opponent is inexperienced, you have to make up for it). I play ping-pong at work at I find that I play in the same spirit. Practically everybody else (except the guy I play regularly) play for points. But playing for points completely changes the game. Rather than looking to improve "the game" people are looking for weaknesses to exploit. That's a very different attitude and I'm not sure it's for the best. However, antagonistic competition also have its pluses. In those sports where "You're competing against yourself", you never really know how good you actually are. Without it you don't know your baseline. Competing tells you your baseline. I was actually quite thrilled to learn that I'm only an average hockey player (translation: more than half the people on my team were definitely better than me). Usually I'm above average in almost everything I do---this actually kinda sucks because things are too easy and the challenge quickly goes away. Knowing that there are many people better than me was motivating (due to my competitive streak).

On the other hand, I spent 7 years as a pre/teen swimming competitively. I hated it for the final three years. Wanted to quit all the time. I drew a graph of how much it sucked as a function of date time on my kicking board. My parents instilled a "don't quit" attitude in us (my sister was a swimmer too). I turned into a "water carrier" pacing the stars. In retrospect, maybe I stayed on too long. Or maybe I learned the value of persistence. Both of these qualities have benefited/worked against me later on.

If a genetic test could have told me that I would be 5'3" at age 15 (I grew almost a foot between age 15 and 18) and thus never had a fighting chance of winning anything on the water, maybe I would have quit much earlier. I think I have the genetics of a mid-distance runner. Great air/anaerobic threshold and very long legs. Give me a few weeks (well, okay, maybe several weeks at my, now older, age) and I can run a 400m just over 60 seconds. With more training, who knows. However, running holds little interest to me. Not sure it would have been a good idea for me if genetic testing at age 5 would have "insisted" that I become a runner. Actually, for sure, that would have sucked even more.

Keeping all this in mind, of all the sports I've played, hockey was probably the hardest sport and the most fun I ever had in any of them. So what does that tell me?

2) I don't really care. At this point I don't think I need genetic testing as much as just thinking about what the sport entails/demands. As an adult, I gotta consider that some sports are simply intended for young kids. For example, a 70 year old kendo practitioner can do quite well. A 70 year old Taek Wondo practioner, not so much. So given that my lifespan is decreasing, I should focus on things where experience outweighs youthful recovery rate. Besides, I'm not looking to win as much as I am to have fun getting better and better(!!!)
See this for inspiration: http://pingpongfilm.co.uk/ (it's on netflix) And yes, I would deliberately avoid certain things in which I knew (based on genetics or simply common sense) I had no chance. Like, I should choose ping pong over tennis, swords over feet, brains over brawn, for example ;)

3) No, I don't really worry about that.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Dragline »

Sorry I'm late to the party. Been a travelin' man.

I found the book fascinating, too, on a difficult subject that has the potential of evoking early 20th century eugenics (or maybe the Wrath of Khan). I liked how the author attacked over-generalizations with gusto, starting with Gladwell's 10,000 hour test (for everything) and delving into the problems with equating race and genetics and why it doesn't work very well. I thought it was very interesting that there was so much more genetic diversity in Africa than in other places, yielding both the best and the worst across the spectrum.

Sorry I don't have time to say more right now. On to the questions:

"1. Is it a good idea to test people when they are young to see where there genetic talents lie? Do you wish you had been tested young? Would have you played a sport or switched sports if it showed a particular talent?"

Testing has become relatively cheap, although I don't think you need a test to see whether your kid is good as something -- its usually pretty obvious. Since almost nobody becomes a professional athlete, I think this approach might take some more of the fun out of it and value of just learning how to perform better. I think I am more with Gladwell here -- encouraging effort rather than looking for natural gifts. Otherwise you may end up with more Todd Marinoviches (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEBYcDcJUn4).

Genetic testing would be more important for children who have unexplained illnesses or other problems that are difficult to diagnose. I think it may also be important for the concussion issue. We let one of our boys play football, but I think the answer would be no if I knew he had the "concussion" gene variant described in the book. Compare this to the Manning boys -- Peyton and Eli were allowed to play, but Cooper has stenosis of the spine, so he was out. I view these gene markers as just another physical trait to be dealt with.

"2. Same question, but as an adult. Would you want genetic testing? The reason I wanted to read this book is because I wanted to know if 10,000 hours were necessary to achieve real success in a chosen field. If someone retires at 40 or 50, does that mean they only have enough time left to master one or two things? Is it useful to know what your body is best suited for, and to choose accordingly? Would you switch activities or try something new because of the results of genetic testing?"

I actually have had mine done via 23andme before the FDA clamped down on them. The main reason I had it done was to see if there was a genetic reason for why certain of my blood counts are habitually low and my blood is "thin", which drives my primary doctor crazy and sends me to a hematologist sometimes. And why I have gout with normal uric acid levels. Sure enough, i learned that I'm basically a bleeder and should avoid blood thinning drugs -- explains why I bruise easily too, but don't need a hematologist. And the gout is more hereditary than dietary. Other than that, I'm pretty darn ordinary. But a lot of the research on this is just in its infancy.

I also learned that I'm basically my own melting pot with ancestors in Latin American, sub-Saharan Africa (an interesting surprise) and all over Europe.

I don't think anything I learned would make me switch activities or habits -- but I am of the view that its often good to try things we are bad at to become more well-rounded people. I did go rushing to my data after I read about the concussion gene, though, and whether I might have passed it on. Luckily, I don't have that.

"3. (bonus question from the paranoid prepper) Would you be willing to be tested even though someone else (employer, insurer) might find out? I know (in theory) they don’t check now, but what about decades from now?"

Yes, I think this will be common practice in the future, the way blood testing is now. And we may need laws to protect both privacy and discrimination on these factors, although medical privacy is already in place. Honestly, for most people, this data is about an interesting to an employer as eye color. I expect life insurance companies will use it the same way they currently use EKGs. So its a new type of test, but not a new problem/issue.


On the positive side, I think this will show that most people have a lot more in common with others who appear different than they might currently think. Unfortunately, it may be that people start identifying by gene more than by race, IQ or whatever other measurement you like. Snobbery comes in all forms, I'm afraid. Genetic Star-bellied Sneetches . . .

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jennypenny »

David McRaney (author of You Are Not So Smart) has David Epstein as his podcast guest this month. There's a discussion of the 10,000 hour rule in the middle and some interesting comments on what he calls the professionalization of children's sports.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/ ... d-epstein/


@10,000 hour rule -- I find it amusing that the practice habits of 30 violinists have had such a profound impact on sports and pop culture.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Chad »

On a side note: I heard someone on a podcast recently calling BS on the 10,000 hour rule. I can't remember who it was, but it seemed legit at the time.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by theanimal »

From what I've seen, it seems like more and more people are starting to come out against the 10,000 hour rule.

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/ ... ours-myth/
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012111 ... -rule-myth

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by jacob »

It boggles my mind that some (many?) would believe that

1) 10000 hours of practice is a sufficient (not required) condition for expertise.
2) there's something magically universal about the number 10000.

Actually, I find it terrifying because it speaks of a fundamental cluelessness wrt the conclusions one can draw from statistical observations.

It's much better to think of expertise as being relatively arranged on Wheaton levels spaced according to a power law. In that regard, 10000 hours simply means a rare amount of effort compared to the average person (with 0 hours). However, it could certainly be that 1000 hours is a rare effort, especially for something novel that most people don't care about. Violin playing (and certain academic fields and personal finance for that matter) is a mature field in which something on the order of 10000 hours is what distinguishes the layman from the expert. Compare that to knowing HTML in the year 1995 when just 100 hours qualified one as an expert.

Edit: Continuing the rant ... all this is clear from Ericsson's original book (the Cambridge book). Perhaps this speaks to the risk of "learning" from scientific popularizations.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Dragline »

Sometimes "rules of thumb" devolve into "rules of dumb".

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: BC #5: The Sports Gene, by David Epstein

Post by Dragline »

Here's a new podcast featuring Epstein and discussing his book:

http://blog.primalblueprint.com/episode ... #more-1071

Post Reply