[buzzcut]

But your physical form w/r/t a sport isn't really a matter of controversy since no one thinks a 5'7" person is going to become a basketball great, although it's not totally impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb

But even in athletics it's more about the type of practice as shown by this study of swimmers: http://www.lillyfellows.org/Portals/0/Chambliss-Mundanity%20...

What I mean is, of course there is "natural talent" in being 6'7" that pushes you towards one sport and away from another, but that's not that interesting I don't think. What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth.

Now, the interesting question you raise is why do some people keep going and others give up.

[thedufer]

> What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth.

Its not clear to me that you actually read what I wrote, since I addressed this exactly, albeit in the domain of programming. There is significant reason to believe that, at least in that domain, talent is innately important in the same way that physical structure is in sports - that is, that it can eliminate a majority of people (but doesn't really differentiate between the significant minority that remains).

[buzzcut]

Oh I read it, but since it was confined to programming only, leaving out the vast domain that is the rest of the world, and with the weight of evidence so far is on the other side, it didn't seem as interesting to me. In addition to the possible methodological problems mentioned in the Ars article. In any case, the state of the evidence, always subject to revision of course, is that innate talent is largely not in play.

[AutoCorrect]

thanks for the link - that was very interesting!