Re: Nature, Nurture, and SolutionTemplates

[Guest guest]

> And if you ask

> him how he did that, he couldn't tell you!

Nature given the opportunity.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

Hi Ralph!

" A good example of this is Jordan. He quit basketball to play

baseball. Despite all his efforts and the efforts of the coaches he could not

hit a

curve ball to save his career. He was forced to admit failure and returned

to basketball. "

****

That was point of the late Dr. Harold Klawans's book, Why Couldn't

Hit

According to Dr. Klawans, that Jordan would not be able to hit a

baseball, at least not well enough to play competitively at a major league

level, was a " bet you could take to the bank. Not because Jordan

wasn't a

great athlete, with both speed and quickness, or because he would get poor

batting instruction. And certainly not because of any lack of effort on his

part. He could be taught and could learn to play the field and run the bases

with the best of them. No one would work harder to develop his own

abilities. Unfortunately, hard work and dedication would not be the issues.

His

inability to hit would be the direct result of a neurological problem. It

would

not be due to any undiagnosed neurological malady but to the way in which his

brain and ours have evolved to do what they do. His lack of hitting skill

is part of his legacy as a member of the human race. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

> Its all learning. Motor learning, in the case of sports.

Telle -- Nope! I coached football, wrestling, track and weight

training, and taught physical education for too many years. Some kids

are just naturals. The level at which they start can't be reached by

others there age no matter what the training -- ever.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA.

[Guest guest]

In terms of motor learning it would just mean they learn easier. There

is no such thing as a baby rolling out of the womb being able to run

downfield and catch a football - or score a 5-point technique, etc.

All a natural is a a quick motor learner - possibly with genetic

advantage for that particular sport they are deemed 'natural' at. I

remember the 'Superstars' competitions from the 70's and one thing

they showed was that even gifted athletes out of their element of

expertise look clumsy when trying to perform a complex novel task.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

>

>

> > Its all learning. Motor learning, in the case of sports.

>

> Telle -- Nope! I coached football, wrestling, track and weight

> training, and taught physical education for too many years. Some kids

> are just naturals. The level at which they start can't be reached by

> others there age no matter what the training -- ever.

>

> Jerry Telle

> Lakewood CO USA.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> In terms of motor learning it would just mean they learn easier.

There

> is no such thing as a baby rolling out of the womb being able to run

> downfield and catch a football - or score a 5-point technique, etc.

>

> All a natural is a a quick motor learner - possibly with genetic

> advantage for that particular sport they are deemed 'natural' at. I

> remember the 'Superstars' competitions from the 70's and one thing

> they showed was that even gifted athletes out of their element of

> expertise look clumsy when trying to perform a complex novel task.

****

Are there any methods of facilitating the learning process for those

who aren't as " natural " ?

The below extracts may be relevant:

" " Science in Coaching

Resource: Constraints Led Approach for Athletes

The path to achieving great skill

Many arguments about what highly successful athletes do in their

training to learn their skill have been highlighted in research. Though

there is no absolute fact about what these athletes do (as they are all

individuals and have unique experiences), in the quest to determine

what brings about greatness, research undertaken to date seems to

suggest:

• Participating in many different sports at a young age has a positive

influence on future success.

• The first coach is critical to create the climate to hook the child

into the sport.

•All future champions initially go through a `romance' phase early in

their careers, meaning that they seem to fall in love with their sport

and therefore become very passionate about their performance.

•There are as many differences as there are similarities between the

athletes.

•Comparisons of individual differences among athletes and the different

environments in which they develop their skills, suggest that athletes

develop unique techniques that are specifically suited to each of them

individually. " "

========================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

> All a natural is a a quick motor learner

Telle -- Like the first time they did it after watching it a few times.

> - possibly with genetic advantage for that particular sport they

> are deemed 'natural' at.

Telle -- " possibly? " A good friend of mine -- Joe Romig -- took 3rd in

state as a just turned 15 yr old 175 lb sophomore. Was All State

football and wrestling his Jr and Sr year, and broke the state

record( I think) in the shot but preferred to lift weights instead of

track. Consensus All American at Colorado Univ his Jr and Sr years and

National Lineman of the year his Sr. year. He also military pressed

225 for reps at 14. Not to mention he was a scholar in

Astrogeophysics ?-- that he had to work for -- the sports were a

given. I don't know any physical thing that would have been out of his

element.

I had 2 14 year old athletes bench press 295 and 305 full pause,

narrow grip, no arch at 144 and 147 lbs. after 4-6 months of training,

5 sets of 5 as per I Berger, Fred Hatfields mentor. And they were

good, albeit not great, at whatever they did.I know adults who have

trained forever who cant strict bench 300 lbs. How many caucasians

have broken the 100-200 meter record in the last 20 years? Or play in

the secondary or could excel at 3 prof sports?

I can't imagine anyone thinking there are not super naturals. Bill

Kazmier once told me he started powerlifting at 225 lbs and got up to

275 w/out drugs !!! and watching him during the multi task Strong

Man ????

> I remember the 'Superstars' competitions from the 70's and one thing

> they showed was that even gifted athletes out of their element --

Telle -- how far out?

> -- of expertise look clumsy when trying to perform a complex novel

> task.

Telle -- that they had never seen before? Who were they compared

against? Others that had never seen/practiced the novel task before??

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

What exact is meant by " natural " ? Just because a kid seemingly does a sport

" easily "  doesn't mean he or she hasn't been through the motor learning process.

The so-called " naturals " are generally the kids who have higher level of

physical activity which lead to greater opportunities to develop and expand

their motor skills. In other words, usually the kids which coaches consider

natural have a higher degree of coordination and body control derived from

spending more time engaging in physical activities such as running, playing,

etc, than the " average " person. Many coaches do not recognize or take into

account the effect daily physical activities have on kids because most

coaches have limited connect with their kids apart from the practice field.

Gallant

Bachelor of Science in Exercise Science

Denver, Colorado

________________________________

To: Supertraining

Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:31:28 AM

Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and " SolutionTemplates "

> Its all learning. Motor learning, in the case of sports.

Telle -- Nope! I coached football, wrestling, track and weight

training, and taught physical education for too many years. Some kids

are just naturals. The level at which they start can't be reached by

others there age no matter what the training -- ever.

============================

[Guest guest]

I think the argument of Nature vs. Nurture is never ending. For every example of

nature there is a comparable story of nurture. I don't think this is an either

or scenario with anything that has been mentioned but I think it is logical to

subscribe to the notion that there is a compromise between nature and nurture.

Not necessarily from a Motor Learning perspective but from a motor development

perspective.

Fascinating discussions and I have enjoyed reading the input of all regarding

this issue.

Steve , ABD, CSCS, USAW

Lynchburg, VA

=============================

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On

Behalf Of Jerry Telle

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:38 PM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and " SolutionTemplates "

> All a natural is a a quick motor learner

Telle -- Like the first time they did it after watching it a few times.

> - possibly with genetic advantage for that particular sport they

> are deemed 'natural' at.

Telle -- " possibly? " A good friend of mine -- Joe Romig -- took 3rd in

state as a just turned 15 yr old 175 lb sophomore. Was All State

football and wrestling his Jr and Sr year, and broke the state

record( I think) in the shot but preferred to lift weights instead of

track. Consensus All American at Colorado Univ his Jr and Sr years and

National Lineman of the year his Sr. year. He also military pressed

225 for reps at 14. Not to mention he was a scholar in

Astrogeophysics ?-- that he had to work for -- the sports were a

given. I don't know any physical thing that would have been out of his

element.

I had 2 14 year old athletes bench press 295 and 305 full pause,

narrow grip, no arch at 144 and 147 lbs. after 4-6 months of training,

5 sets of 5 as per I Berger, Fred Hatfields mentor. And they were

good, albeit not great, at whatever they did.I know adults who have

trained forever who cant strict bench 300 lbs. How many caucasians

have broken the 100-200 meter record in the last 20 years? Or play in

the secondary or could excel at 3 prof sports?

I can't imagine anyone thinking there are not super naturals. Bill

Kazmier once told me he started powerlifting at 225 lbs and got up to

275 w/out drugs !!! and watching him during the multi task Strong

Man ????

> I remember the 'Superstars' competitions from the 70's and one thing

> they showed was that even gifted athletes out of their element --

Telle -- how far out?

> -- of expertise look clumsy when trying to perform a complex novel

> task.

Telle -- that they had never seen before? Who were they compared

against? Others that had never seen/practiced the novel task before??

===============================

[Guest guest]

HI Steve!

In a message dated 12/4/2008 2:46:37 A.M. Central America Standard T,

smith.s@... writes:

I think the argument of Nature vs. Nurture is never ending. For every

example of nature there is a comparable story of nurture

I like the way the late Dr. Klawans described this in his book: " Nature

determines the limits of what nurture can accomplish. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/2008 12:55:30 P.M. Central America Standard ,

JRTELLE@... writes:

I coached football, wrestling, track and weight

training, and taught physical education for too many years. Some kids

are just naturals. The level at which they start can't be reached by

others there age no matter what the training -- ever.

****

Hi Jerry!

I understand what you're saying. This issue came up on the forum over a

year ago. I mentioned that there is a term that I think high school football

coaches in Texas still use to describe talented running backs: they have

'zuzu.'

An athlete with zuzu has the ability to read the field, react quickly,

reverse direction, cut quickly, elude defenders, etc. The best high school

backs

all have zuzu. If you talk to coaches, they say it's not an issue of speed or

agility or skills training. It is an innate 'feel' for the game that allows

them to 'read' the field of play. They either have it or they don't.

I still don't know to what extent this is trainable.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

I see no evidence supporting this. I suspect most do start by that age

- but that is far from proof.

There is also little evidence that hitting a curve ball has to do with

picking up the spin of the ball. Ted and his 'red dot' theory

aside I seem to recall a study which demonstrated that major league

players were unable to identify the type of pitch within .4 seconds or

whatever it is that they had as a window of opportunity.

To be honest - I think the whole argument is academic though. The

point is to find passion for a sport/activity/goal and pursue it.

Those who can do so prior to 13 - hats off to them. I also agree that

a great coach and a young child is a good thing - no matter what the

sport. Both my children chose to participate (and excel) in wrestling,

largely because we had several great coaches here in Saskatoon in that

sport. I've often commented that I wanted Shane Bradley coaching my

kids - the fact his sport was wrestling was largely irrelevant. He is

just a great coach.

I suspect there are more than a few in Lisle who might say the same

about Ken Jakalski. I say that in all seriousness - I've experienced

your passion for sport on this forum. So Ken - you keep on catching

those kids young and do what you do. Far be it from me to discourage

you in any way!

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

>

> In a message dated 12/4/2008 10:16:14 A.M. Central America Standard ,

> kshobman@... writes:

>

> I don't know if I agree with that. There are lots of people who

> started hitting young who can't get around on a major league fastball.

> There are less, but there are still highly skilled athletes who came

> to their sport late

>

> ****

> Hi !

>

> As Dr. Klawans points out in his book:

>

> " There are no scientific studies of windows of opportunity in baseball

> players, but the appropriate studies have been done in violinists.

> Becoming an

> accomplished violinist requires motor skills that must be mastered

> by the

> brain. Instead of learning to recognize the spin on a speeding

> baseball and

> translate that into a muscular response, playing a violin consists

> of the brain

> learning to give rapid and complex directions to the fingers of both

> hands in

> response to visual or aural clues. Scientific investigation of the

> process

> showed pretty much what professional musicians have always known. In

> order to

> become a violin virtuoso, a musician has to start playing before the

> age of

> thirteen. "

>

> Klawans also notes a similarity with language development:

>

> " Just like the learning of bird songs by birds and learning how to

> hit a

> curveball, the acquisition of language requires environmental input.

> And no

> matter what culture the human infant is raised in, no matter what

> language his

> is exposed to, acquisition of language can only occur during a

> critical period

> of development. A critical period is a specific time interval in

> which an

> ability must be acquired if it is ever to be acquired at all. "

>

> According to Klawans, evidence of such 'windows of opportunity "

> relative to

> language can be found in humans who have not been exposed to

> language until

> after this critical period has passed, such as Itard's

> " Victor " (Wild Boy of

> Averyron) and the more contemporary " Genie, " extensively researched

> by

> Curtiss.

>

> Parallels to this " window of opportunity " can also be found in

> gymnastics as

> well as music.

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle HS

> Lisle, IL USA

>

>

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

The only thing wrong with the nature nurture discussion is the

tendency to support one more than the other. Every situation has

elements of both and demands adherence to both. Nature nurture are not

2 sides of a coin but different shadings of a sphere.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

I'm rather surprised that no one has pointed to this link yet. It may

not be " sports specific " , but it does make a compelling point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/15/malcolm-gladwell-outliers-extract

Salisbury

Boulder, CO

USA

Extracts:

.......This idea - that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum

level of practice - surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact,

researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true

expertise: 10,000 hours.

" In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers,

ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, " writes the

neurologist Levitin, " this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand

hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of

practice over 10 years... No one has yet found a case in which true world-class

expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this

long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery. "

This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example,

famously started writing music at six. But, the psychologist Howe writes

in his book Genius Explained, by the standards of mature composers Mozart's

early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written

down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's

childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and

orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those

concertos that contain only music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now

regarded as a masterwork (No9 K271) was not composed until he was 21: by that

time Mozart had already been composing concertos for 10 years.

To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about 10 years. (Only the

legendary Bobby Fischer got to that elite level in less than that time: it took

him nine years.) And what's 10 years? Well, it's roughly how long it takes to

put in 10,000 hours of hard practice.

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but

impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by

yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't

be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help

make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most

people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special

programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary

opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work....

[Guest guest]

Thank you for calling attention to this insight. Surely the reason, for

example, that so many Chinese students in America are able to do Ph.D

dissertations in math is not that they have a " math gene " but that their

parents, relatives, teachers, and other cultural icons insisted that they put

the time in learning the techniques and working the problems when they were

growing up. The recent tendency to downplay the efforts of adults

to cultivate skills in children and to suppose that children learn mostly from

their peers is misconceived and mostly wrong. Mozart didn't learn to write

symphonies and operas from other pre-teens, he learned from his father and real

pros like  " Papa "   ph Haydn. Agassi started learning tennis this way when his

dad tied a ball over his head and taped a rudimentary racket to his hand when

the boy was still a baby in the crib. There are no 

90-day wonders, more like 10,000 hour wonders, as you say. 

 

Bob Monie

New Orleans, LA 

====================================

Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and " SolutionTemplates "

To: Supertraining

Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:05 PM

I'm rather surprised that no one has pointed to this link yet. It may

not be " sports specific " , but it does make a compelling point.

http://www.guardian .co.uk/books/ 2008/nov/ 15/malcolm- gladwell- outliers-

extract

Salisbury

Boulder, CO

USA

Extracts:

.......This idea - that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum

level of practice - surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact,

researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true

expertise: 10,000 hours.

" In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers,

ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, " writes the

neurologist Levitin, " this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand

hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of

practice over 10 years... No one has yet found a case in which true world-class

expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this

long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery. "

This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example,

famously started writing music at six. But, the psychologist Howe writes

in his book Genius Explained, by the standards of mature composers Mozart's

early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written

down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's

childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and

orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those

concertos that contain only music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now

regarded as a masterwork (No9 K271) was not composed until he was 21: by that

time Mozart had already been composing concertos for 10 years.

To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about 10 years. (Only the

legendary Bobby Fischer got to that elite level in less than that time: it took

him nine years.) And what's 10 years? Well, it's roughly how long it takes to

put in 10,000 hours of hard practice.

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but

impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by

yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't

be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help

make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most

people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special

programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary

opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work....

================================

[Guest guest]

> I still don't know to what extent this is trainable.

Hi Ken,

Everything is trainable -- but as we are both aware only to potential

limit -- what ever that is??

The best example I can think of is that todays caucasian dribblers are

approximating yesteryears

black athletes. I think zuzu can be trained -- to a much greater

extent than one might think -- with innovative perception awareness

and movement exercises.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/6/2008 2:08:54 A.M. Central America Standard T,

bobm20001@... writes:

There are no

90-day wonders, more like 10,000 hour wonders, as you say.

Hi Bob!

I very much concur with this. Although some scholars will contend that

innate talents or gifts are necessary to achieve some eventual elite level

performance, I don't think any serious scholar would argue that innate

talent--were it even considered a key variable-- is sufficient for greatness.

My problem is that, though I accept cson's notion of " deliberate

practice, " for me it's just as difficult to isolate the contributions of

disciplined

practice as it is to isolate innate abilities. I teach in a smaller school

district with only one grade school and 'feeder' junior high. As a result,

I'm able to 'track' what kids are doing through grade school, junior high,

and high school. What I find is a separation of talent--maybe Kaufman's term

" proclivity " is a better way to describe it--even though the specific kids

I've tracked appear to have practiced the same amount of time, competed in the

same number of events, and been given the same skills base from coaches who

have been in the district system for at least fifteen years.

I agree with Subotnik's contention that the research question that would put

this argument to rest is to show how two groups, one with ‘abilities’ in

that particular domain and another without, would perform

with " identical practice regimes, holding variances such as previous

exposure, family values and psychosocial dimensions constant. "

I've done various surveys over the years trying to determine which of my

more successful high school runners were 1) the consistently fastest in gym

class through grade school and junior high and 2) were exposed to running

early,

or who might have 'valued' running more because they had parents or

siblings who were 5K, 10K, or marathon runners themselves.

I am often left with the question, as Subotnik pointed out in one of his

responses to cson, " how does one account for people who practice as much as

experts, but never achieve that stage of expertise? "

Subotnik brings up my " group " -- teachers and coaches who focus on

identifying, preparing. and training kids to push nurture as far as nature will

allow.

Many of my colleagues believe that they " know talent when they see it. "

However, as Subotnik points out, " by the time they ‘see it’, it’s hard

to

distinguish how much a

candidate’s performance is due to practice, abilities, opportunities,

personality or passion.

I'm really enjoying the discussion so far, and I think we are all in

agreement with the following two principles:

Disciplined practice guided by an outstanding teacher/mentor is essential to

developing exceptionally high quality performance.

Commitment of years to instruction and practice is also essential.

Maybe bringing up this issue of proclivities and solution templates has

something to do with my moping over having both my cross country squads

eliminated in the first round of the state series this past October, and in one

case,

by a team with three freshman in their top five--freshman with neither the

training age nor competitive background of my veteran juniors and seniors

But I'm sure we've all been there...

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Regarding the neurologists's view of 'windows of opportunity' (Dr. Harold

Klawans), sson seems to agree with this notion:

" Some of our commentators incorrectly assume that we imply that any random

individual can become an expert. We argue that attaining expert performance is

clearly constrained by opportunities to engage in

deliberate practice, and that this is a far from trivial constraint.

Sometimes these opportunities are related to the age of the performer. In our

target

article, we discussed how critical periods can impose barriers, preventing

random individuals from reaching elite levels of achievement in certain

domains unless these individuals engage in appropriate practice activities

within

the associated developmental windows. Similarly an early start of training

often allows access to the best teachers and training environments—most

adults

cannot engage in deliberate practice for practical purposes, given their busy

day-to-day lives and additional responsibilities. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Shavinia has added this insight on the 'critical window of opportunity " :

" There are no doubts that extended training and deliberate practice improve

performance. But it is not entirely correct to assert that starting practice

anytime will lead to Olympic gold medals or similar achievements. The

beginning of the deliberate practice should coincide with the sensitive periods

in an

individual’s development. For example, the famous Canadian hockey player

Wayne Gretzky

began skating just before turning three, and soon after, his father built a

skating rink in their backyard. Gretzky spent hours there, occasionally

coming in to have his toes warmed between the hands of his father. Those early

years of playing hockey were critical for his amazing success in hockey.

On many occasions Wayne Gretzky explained his unbelievable success in hockey

by his ability to be not where a pack is at the moment, but to always be

where it will be in the next moment. Why don’t we have hundreds of Wayne

Gretzkys?

Many practice deliberately and extremely hard, in accordance with the expert

performance approach.

As Wayne Gretzky’s and one of his manager’s quotes indicate, he has a

unique type of mental representations and, as a result, metacognitive

abilities.

We do not know for sure whether deliberate practice alone shaped these

abilities or it only crystallized them. "

As general manager Harry Sinden once said: ‘Gretzky sees a picture out there

that no one else sees’,

According to neurologist Tatton, who has studied long loop reflexes

in Wayne Gretsky, " The Great One takes less time from the instant he perceives

the stimulus until his shot has been fired, until his long loop reflexes

have sent the puck off to the goal. "

In addition, " Gretsky has one other physical-neurological attribute that

undoubtedly contributes to his extraordinary success. Gretsky claims that he

never turns his head in order to make a pass. In fact, he never looks at the

players on his wings before passing the puck to them. What Gretsky is

reporting

is a much greater than average ability to perceive motion. In Gretsky,

" these visual cells and their distribution are under hereditary control, for

without proper stimulation during the appropriate window of opportunity they

will

never develop to their maximal capability. Gretsky had this physical skill

and developed it. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Everyone,

Just this afternoon I read and article in Psychology Today magazine that

discussed and named a handful of individuals and one specific athlete that did

not start the sport till he was 21 and is now a national champion. I will post

the article name when I can get it. It is not exactly what we are talking about

but has a lot of similarity in relation to behavior and beliefs in oneself.

Otherwise this discussion has been very interesting, thanks.

Doug Fairbanks

Boston, Ma

=============================

To: Supertraining@...: CoachJ1@...: Sun, 7 Dec 2008

22:43:24 -0500Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and

" SolutionTemplates "

Shavinia has added this insight on the 'critical window of

opportunity " : " There are no doubts that extended training and deliberate practice

improve performance. But it is not entirely correct to assert that starting

practice anytime will lead to Olympic gold medals or similar achievements. The

beginning of the deliberate practice should coincide with the sensitive periods

in an individual’s development. For example, the famous Canadian hockey player

Wayne Gretzkybegan skating just before turning three, and soon after, his father

built a skating rink in their backyard. Gretzky spent hours there, occasionally

coming in to have his toes warmed between the hands of his father. Those early

years of playing hockey were critical for his amazing success in hockey. On many

occasions Wayne Gretzky explained his unbelievable success in hockey by his

ability to be not where a pack is at the moment, but to always be where it will

be in the next moment. Why don’t we have hundreds of Wayne Gretzkys? Many

practice deliberately and extremely hard, in accordance with the expert

performance approach.As Wayne Gretzky’s and one of his manager’s quotes

indicate, he has a unique type of mental representations and, as a result,

metacognitive abilities. We do not know for sure whether deliberate practice

alone shaped these abilities or it only crystallized them. " As general manager

Harry Sinden once said: ‘Gretzky sees a picture out there that no one else

sees’, According to neurologist Tatton, who has studied long loop

reflexes in Wayne Gretsky, " The Great One takes less time from the instant he

perceives the stimulus until his shot has been fired, until his long loop

reflexes have sent the puck off to the goal. " In addition, " Gretsky has one other

physical-neurological attribute that undoubtedly contributes to his

extraordinary success. Gretsky claims that he never turns his head in order to

make a pass. In fact, he never looks at the players on his wings before passing

the puck to them. What Gretsky is reporting is a much greater than average

ability to perceive motion. In Gretsky, " these visual cells and their

distribution are under hereditary control, for without proper stimulation during

the appropriate window of opportunity they will never develop to their maximal

capability. Gretsky had this physical skill and developed it. " Ken JakalskiLisle

HSLisle, IL USA

=========================

[Guest guest]

Have you all heard of a guy named Karl Newell. He created a constraints led view

of the Dynamical Systems theory that theorizes that development occurs through

an interaction on constraints from the task, the environment, or the organism.

All of these discussions in some way reinforces that talent is not an easy

concept to define and it is logical to think that there are several reasons that

facilitate highly talented individuals rather than just deliberate practice and

great genes. If anyone is interested in his 1986 article let me know and I can

send it to you.

Steve , ABD, CSCS, USAW

Assistant Professor

Health and Physical Education and Exercise Physiology

Strength and Conditioning Coach

Assistant Coach- Golf

Coordinator- Game Management

Lynchburg College

smith.s@...

Re: Nature, Nurture, and

" SolutionTemplates "

Shavinia has added this insight on the 'critical window of

opportunity " : " There are no doubts that extended training and deliberate practice

improve performance. But it is not entirely correct to assert that starting

practice anytime will lead to Olympic gold medals or similar achievements. The

beginning of the deliberate practice should coincide with the sensitive periods

in an individual's development. For example, the famous Canadian hockey player

Wayne Gretzkybegan skating just before turning three, and soon after, his father

built a skating rink in their backyard. Gretzky spent hours there, occasionally

coming in to have his toes warmed between the hands of his father. Those early

years of playing hockey were critical for his amazing success in hockey. On many

occasions Wayne Gretzky explained his unbelievable success in hockey by his

ability to be not where a pack is at the moment, but to always be where it will

be in the next moment. Why don't we have hundreds of Wayne Gretzkys? Many

practice deliberately and extremely hard, in accordance with the expert

performance approach.As Wayne Gretzky's and one of his manager's quotes

indicate, he has a unique type of mental representations and, as a result,

metacognitive abilities. We do not know for sure whether deliberate practice

alone shaped these abilities or it only crystallized them. " As general manager

Harry Sinden once said: 'Gretzky sees a picture out there that no one else

sees', According to neurologist Tatton, who has studied long loop

reflexes in Wayne Gretsky, " The Great One takes less time from the instant he

perceives the stimulus until his shot has been fired, until his long loop

reflexes have sent the puck off to the goal. " In addition, " Gretsky has one other

physical-neurological attribute that undoubtedly contributes to his

extraordinary success. Gretsky claims that he never turns his head in order to

make a pass. In fact, he never looks at the players on his wings before passing

the puck to them. What Gretsky is reporting is a much greater than average

ability to perceive motion. In Gretsky, " these visual cells and their

distribution are under hereditary control, for without proper stimulation during

the appropriate window of opportunity they will never develop to their maximal

capability. Gretsky had this physical skill and developed it. " Ken JakalskiLisle

HSLisle, IL USA

=========================