[shoover]

“They give up more easily. They have quite avoidant coping tendencies when things can't be perfect.” That, of course, hinders them from the very success that they want to achieve. In his 60-plus studies focusing on athletes, for example, Hill has found that the single biggest predictor of success in sports is simply practice. But if practice isn’t going well, perfectionists might stop. It makes me think of my own childhood peppered with avoiding (or starting and quitting) almost every sport there was. If I wasn’t adept at something almost from the get-go, I didn’t want to continue – especially if there was an audience watching.

Ugh. Been there, done that. I remember skipping the first year of fast pitch baseball because I was sure I’d never be able to hit the ball. It simply wasn’t true and can only have set me back when rejoining the following year.

I assumed perfectionism was generational or at least cultural. It’s distressing to see it’s widespread and increasing. The studies put a fine focus on the need to get smarter and model healthier responses to mistakes for the next generation.

[watwut]

> In his 60-plus studies focusing on athletes, for example, Hill has found that the single biggest predictor of success in sports is simply practice.

I mean apart of genetic makeup - if you have wrong genetics no amount of practice will help you.

[collyw]

Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers" book shows some interesting relationships between month of birth and professional sports players.

Basically those born earlier in the year will generally have a physical advantage, which at a young age can make quite a difference (think of a chiold at 6 yeard old exactly compared to a child whi is 6 years and 11 months old).

These kids are then singled out and given extra training for the sport which they are good at, which compounds the effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

[iovrthoughtthis]

That's a terribly self limiting mindset.

[watwut]

It is reality. Someone with large hands has huge advantage over someone with small ones in competitive swimming. Someone with a lot of red muscle fibre will grow stronger then someone with white one in weight lifting. Weight lifters are not small by random either. Pretending it is not so is just lying to yourself or worst if you make moral virtue out sport.

[iovrthoughtthis]

I'm not doubting effects phenotype has on abilities in specific areas. Just that the mental model of "I can't" is very limiting.

Just because your phenotype isn't ideal for a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Also there are a large array of phenotypical that are harder to identify through testing than just giving it a go and seeing how you go / enjoy it.

[watwut]

We were talking about predictors of success. You can do sport recreationally or for fun, but that is not what is meant by "predictor of success". If your goal is to have success in competition, you will compete against people who have right phenotype. In which case it makes more sense to look at sport that might suit you.

Also, if two students start weight lift and he grows faster then you, the reason might not be that one is simply lazy and the other simply trains harder.

[mtberatwork]

Clearly you can find numerous cases in sports of individuals overcoming physical limitations by finding alternate pathways to success (take for example short/shorter NBA players). Furthermore, those with "good genes" do not always find success. In competition, preparation and luck far outweighs the gene factor.