The distaste for strength in martial arts

Yup. To use my brother again, it's perfectly fine that he's not elite or going to be in a renowned orchestra. He could even become a professional piano player with just the hard work, either through something like a dueling pianos, or as a piano teacher.

And if anyone asked me if they could learn piano, my answer would be yes. Regardless of talent, regardless of age. I was just replying to the point that got brought up with the william's sisters and "masters".
Yes. Exactly. And there is a lot of value in the activity. I’m very curious and game to try just about anything. As a result, I’m “pretty good” at a lot of stuff. Not elite level at anything, but I still derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from the effort.
 
Are we sure it doesn't? I added some meat to my last post but this is a great topic. Strength training, is it best done on your own or with a coach? Do people who go en solo excel best? I doubt it.

It's a basic question anybody can ask themselves "what's driving you today". For me it's always family, I train a million things every day so that I stick around the longest (because nobody I know has the patience I do).

Going back to the Williams sisters, I think it's safe to say that if their dad had been a deadbeat, we'd never hear of either of them, and no amount of natural skill OR dedication would have changed that.

Can we name a single person who became an elite strength trainer/trainee and/or fighter who didn't sit on the shoulders of giants? I can't.
Good training and/or mentorship are like a force multiplier. You can learn to do things on your own, and if you have exceptional aptitude, you might even become pretty darned good at it. But good training and mentorship can raise your ceiling.

What you can’t get by without is experience.
 
Good training and/or mentorship are like a force multiplier. You can learn to do things on your own, and if you have exceptional aptitude, you might even become pretty darned good at it. But good training and mentorship can raise your ceiling.

What you can’t get by without is experience.
Then if exceptional aptitude is rare, most people can't rely on that. I know I can't.

Even if they think they can, Gerry just pointed out, dedication isn't enough. ;)
 
Can we name a single person who became an elite strength trainer/trainee and/or fighter who didn't sit on the shoulders of giants? I can't.
The original post you made was about whether or not someone needed a "driver" to become a "real fighter". People need a coach yes, but they don't have to be any sort of inspirational person or mentor beyond teaching them the mechanics. At least if their goal is to learn how to fight.

Or did you change the question from "real fighter" to "elite fighter" (or do those mean the same to you)? If you want to be the best of the best, I'd argue that you need all the things mentioned and can't be lacking in any.
 
The original post you made was about whether or not someone needed a "driver" to become a "real fighter". People need a coach yes, but they don't have to be any sort of inspirational person or mentor beyond teaching them the mechanics. At least if their goal is to learn how to fight.

Or did you change the question from "real fighter" to "elite fighter" (or do those mean the same to you)? If you want to be the best of the best, I'd argue that you need all the things mentioned and can't be lacking in any.
Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc. Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself.

I think the "real" vs "elite" equivocation is importance, because to untrained people, is there a difference? Anybody reasonably skilled in strength or combat training is going to appear elite to the laypeople, and that's like 99% or something else close to made up but really big.

With respect to strength training in particular, we seem to agree that coaching is necessary on some level. The inspiration part can come from anywhere too. I find great inspiration in a cartoon character, in fact, it helps me pick instructors...
 
Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc. Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself.

I think the "real" vs "elite" equivocation is importance, because to untrained people, is there a difference? Anybody reasonably skilled in strength or combat training is going to appear elite to the laypeople, and that's like 99% or something else close to made up but really big.

With respect to strength training in particular, we seem to agree that coaching is necessary on some level. The inspiration part can come from anywhere too. I find great inspiration in a cartoon character, in fact, it helps me pick instructors...
I'm not sure we actually are disagreeing on anything here. My whole point with the example with my brother was that to pretty much everyone, he seems elite in piano playing. It's only when you reach that 99.x% that you can see he's not. And where you need to have all the ducks fully. Up until that point, and what most people will be impressed by, you can be missing/lacking in some of those factors and still be good.
 
Dedication, personality, talent, genetics, sure.

What about what I said about "driver". That's an external human being, dude. Family, teacher, muse, inspiration, whatever.

You left out environment! Just think about all that raw talent out there lost forever in the wasteland. Not every natural born talent gets a break or a helping hand. It really does require a meeting of minds. Even virtuosos have their muses.
Yes. We need someone to push us to level we did not know we could actually reach ourselves. I used to get that once a day. Go to the top end of the dojo and get my "medicine". in Japan we call this Uchidachi. To initiate the action and govern the tempo keeping oneself just above the level of the student.
 
This is a chicken and egg dilemma.

Were the Williams sisters born tennis masters because of natural abilities, or was it because their father pushed them to excel while nurturing their natural gifts? You could argue that without their driver, the girls would never have ended up being world champions.

I'm on the fence. I like to believe everyone can learn kung fu, but most won't because they're not driven enough, which if you know anything about kung fu, is the most important part.

Strength training is a great example of something everyone says they want to do, but few actually do, and even fewer do well.
I have done this professionally for years in Japan. We do our best work when we are dog tired. To educate the body that speed/success does not come from strength. To squash that subliminal message that associates aggression with strength and tension. Done on a daily basis. If I remember it took me around eight months practicing ten times a week before things started to drop into place.
 
I have done this professionally for years in Japan. We do our best work when we are dog tired. To educate the body that speed/success does not come from strength. To squash that subliminal message that associates aggression with strength and tension. Done on a daily basis. If I remember it took me around eight months practicing ten times a week before things started to drop into place.
Huh.

How about "from genetics"? That's something else that was posited.
 
Relevent research in Psychology suggests a significant portion of our personality (not all of it, by any means) is heritable - meaning it is demonstrably influenced by genetics. I don't recall specifics off the top of my head, but I recall there was significant heritability in factors that probably contribute: aggresssion, emotional regulation, tolerance for pain, high motivation, etc.
Off Topic for most,

I would like to thin that this is not necessairly true. I think most of these traits are picked up by memetics and not genetics. Up to a point yes there is a lot we inherit (part unknown) but more we pick from mimetics.

Having never known any of my biological parents, I can guarantee you that I still talk, walk and act like my adoptive parents (based on memetics) then people I have never met.

On the other hand, there is clear distinction in way of being between me and anyone else in my family (twin sisters from adoptive parents and a brother and sister also adpoted but genetically tied, I am tied to no one) and the rest of them do have certain things in common (outside of the memetics and way we were raised) that I do not. I can assume that this is the inherited part but it is quite minimal in the overall makeup.

Basically, I am saying that the psychological study itself may be flawed if they only tested people with biological links to each other vs people living together or raised by someone else not biologically related and what is the effect or what is inherited vs what is memetics. And from there have a proper and true assessment....
 
Actually, there is not. The egg was first. An egg laid by a near-chicken can hatch a chicken. But the chicken cannot exist prior to that egg being laid.
That's why they call it evolution. It existed a lot earlier than logic. Do genetics rule the future, with regard to strength training? Or is it something else. Genes are sauce for the goose.

Early on I was trying to make a point or two about speed. I can't outrun Usain Bolt, and definitely not the dog, but most people? You bet.

Nasal breathing, dude. Under pressure.
 
That's why they call it evolution. It existed a lot earlier than logic. Do genetics rule the future, with regard to strength training? Or is it something else. Genes are sauce for the goose.
As with most things, the answer is yes. Because both matter.
Early on I was trying to make a point or two about speed. I can't outrun Usain Bolt,
I can. I just need to kick him once first...
and definitely not the dog,
Again, it depends. I am not going to outrun a Greyhound, but a Corgi? I think I have a pretty good shot. And I'm totally confident I can outrun a Chihuahua.
 
Along with what Gerry said about even the personality aspects being heritable, there is definitely a level that dedication can't take you, but talent/genetics can. Even if you take out things like a person below 6ft is much likely to make it in the nba, less obvious stuff exists.

An example came up at dinner yesterday with my brother actually. We were talking about music, and he was dedicated to piano. Playing hours a day, started young, and we had a really good piano teacher. He even went to a competitive college for it. He met people that were a lot better than him, and probably practiced an equal amount or less as him.

No one in our family has played a musical instrument to our knowledge. A few have tried, found they were bad and stopped, so we don't have a genetic component. He probably reached the limit of what someone without the genes for music can reach, and he is really good. Anyone I've met that heard him play will talk about how amazing he was...except those people that went to the college with him, where he met many people better.

Similarly, there are tennis players who have probably put in the same effort as the Williams sisters, until they realized they would not be world champions. And you (if you're not naturally talented) can reach a certain level in your kung fu (as a martial art, not the literal meaning of the word LOL), with hard work, that's leagues above the average person. But still a league behind those who have both talent and determination.
There definitely is some strong evidence for the heritability of some kinds of genius. It's complex (I can't dredge up the right terms in my brain at the moment) - almost certainly multiple chromosomes/alleles involved. I can't see any reason to suspect that's not true of sports, as much as it is for music.

And there are other obvious advantages that can exist. Until I was in my late 20's, I couldn't really put on muscle mass. I was always a skinny guy, even when I was going to the gym for a bit more than an hour every morning, training body building style (some friends who had a lot of success with it were helping me out). But then again, I also never had to worry about fat. I could eat as much of whatever I wanted, and it just didn't matter. Genetic factors like those have to figure in there somewhere, too.
 
Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc. Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself.
Let me clarify, as you (and probably others) may have misunderstood what I meant. Heritability doesn't mean genetics is the dominant factor, much less the only factor. It just means it is a factor. Heritability is measured on a scale of 0-1, where 0 means there no genetic involvement in the trait, and 1 means the trait is entirely determined by genetics. Many personality traits have heritability between .3 and .6, so some are mostly developed (with significant genetic influence) while others are mostly genetic (with significant environmental influence).
 
Off Topic for most,

I would like to thin that this is not necessairly true. I think most of these traits are picked up by memetics and not genetics. Up to a point yes there is a lot we inherit (part unknown) but more we pick from mimetics.

Having never known any of my biological parents, I can guarantee you that I still talk, walk and act like my adoptive parents (based on memetics) then people I have never met.

On the other hand, there is clear distinction in way of being between me and anyone else in my family (twin sisters from adoptive parents and a brother and sister also adpoted but genetically tied, I am tied to no one) and the rest of them do have certain things in common (outside of the memetics and way we were raised) that I do not. I can assume that this is the inherited part but it is quite minimal in the overall makeup.

Basically, I am saying that the psychological study itself may be flawed if they only tested people with biological links to each other vs people living together or raised by someone else not biologically related and what is the effect or what is inherited vs what is memetics. And from there have a proper and true assessment....
The research shows there are some traits that are mostly determined by genetics. Oddly, where environment matters, it's mostly about what you and your siblings (for instance) experienced differently, rather than about what you experienced similarly. I have trouble wrapping my head around that.

Studies typically look at things like siblings, step-siblings (no genetic relation), and twins (both identical and fraternal). So they examine both sides of the question. It's worth knowing that a few decades ago, the dominant position in psychology was that behavior was almost entirely learned. Research over the last 30 years has largely debunked those theories.
 
Back
Top