Speedcubing... are we talented?

[NicoCuber]

Speedcubing? you consider this a talent? I say to you to solve cubes: 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, 7x7, Pyramix, blinfold, etc..
Or other example :
just solve a Rubik's Cube sub 10..... is a talent?
For example:
Someone who knows how to solve a Rubik's Cube 3 in 1 minute 30 seconds. He is someone who has a talent for you?
If so
Someone who can build cubes: 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, 7x7 ... to .......
Anyway. What do you know do (Speedcubing)? and do you think you have talent?

Well solve a Rubik's Cube is the reach of any but does not everyone?

[benskoning]

Hmm... Ineresting and if we are talented then what makes us talented at Cubing? And is it a learned talent. This raises a lot of questions.

[A Leman]

No, I do not think we are talented. A talent is a natural ability. We did not naturally pick up a cube and sub-15 solve it on our first try. Cubing is more like a trained skill that we developed with hours of practice. There are exceptions, for example, things like a brute force blindsolve with the LBL method (before you have a clue what a memory method is) shows some talent in visual perception and memory.

[NicoCuber]

No, I do not think we are talented. A talent is a natural ability. We did not naturally pick up a cube and sub-15 solve it on our first try. Cubing is more like a trained skill that we developed with hours of practice. There are exceptions, for example, things like a brute force blindsolve with the LBL method (before you have a clue what a memory method is) shows some talent in visual perception and memory.

The big question : talent is born or made? born(talent naturally) or made (our case).we practice to be talented.

[Stefan]

we practice to be talented.

No, I practice to be skilled. Talent is such an annoying ambiguous word.

[Dene]

Provide a definition for "talent" then I'll answer the question... although I think then the question will answer itself.

[sneaklyfox]

No, I do not think we are talented. A talent is a natural ability. We did not naturally pick up a cube and sub-15 solve it on our first try. Cubing is more like a trained skill that we developed with hours of practice. There are exceptions, for example, things like a brute force blindsolve with the LBL method (before you have a clue what a memory method is) shows some talent in visual perception and memory.

A talented musician probably cannot pick up a violin and play a Tchaikovsky Concerto on the first try. They still have to put in hours of practice but that doesn't mean it's just a trained skill. I believe there is such a thing as talent. It is not just learned. A talented cuber doesn't take as long to get fast because they have a natural ability that others don't. So you have those people who from not being cubers at all start learning and within a few months are already sub-20 vs the people who only reach sub-20 after a few years. It's possible that they can at some point be equally skilled, but the first person had the talent. And also, there is a limit to the cuber who did it with hard work. I'm not sure where that limit is in terms of cubing, but I think there is one. And after they reach their limit, no amount of practicing will do very much.

[HelpCube]

No, I practice to be skilled. Talent is such an annoying ambiguous word.

100% agreed. I hate it when people say, "Oh, you are so gifted to be born with that talent". Or even worse, "You should be so thankful God gave you that talent". While I believe in God, I can see that through practice is how I improve, not through natural abilities.

[A Leman]

And after they reach their limit, no amount of practicing will do very much.

That is not a belief I could live by. Especially with a hobby like cubing. A defeatist mentality can sometimes be the only thing holding someone back. If I am dispointed with where I am, then I try even more to get better!

[Dominate]

I believe there are certain "born that way" arguments for things that are dominantly physical, such being very short playing basketball, but that stuff is obvious. The issue I have with "born that way" when it comes to dominantly mental skills is that there are many ways of doing things mentally.

For example, a short person may have their own strong qualities physically, such as lung capacity. That doesn't mean they will benefit from putting the ball against their lips and attempting to blow it over the heads of their opponents. There is really only one way to put a ball in a basket from across the court, and that is a simple arch. You can increase the angle of the shot from the ground along with increased force and still get it in, but there isn't much else you can do because it's not conceptual, it's physical.

However, when it comes to something mental like speedsolving, there are always many different ways of approaching learning and practicing. Everyone has a chance to make use of their own strengths and their own way of seeing things. If one way isn't working for you, try another.

And also, there is a limit to the cuber who did it with hard work. I'm not sure where that limit is in terms of cubing, but I think there is one. And after they reach their limit, no amount of practicing will do very much.

A solver can definitely get to the point of not improving at all no matter how much they practice, but that's what deliberate practice is for. Mass solving reaches one's potential, and deliberate practice introduces new potential to reach.

A simple example is full OLL. One can practice hundreds of solves a day for months, but if they never actually take the time to deliberately learn one look OLL, they will never know it. They're not going to just wake up one day and magically know 50 new algorithms just because they practiced X amount of hours. That's an obvious example of how just solving over and over will not cause improvement in all possible areas.

A more complex example is multi-slotting or x-cross. If a person only ever figures out two or three pieces of their cross and then starts the solve, they can practice like that for years if they want to and they'll never go further than that. Only when they force themselves to actually take the time to figure out the full cross, and later the x-cross, will they increase their potential. After they take that time, they can then just mass solve to improve and reach their newly created potential. Multi-slotting is the same. How can one improve at optimizing the solving two pairs when they just insert one pair after another as fast as they can, never even considering the next pair until the current one is done?

My rule of thumb is that if what I'm practicing is not frustratingly difficult, then I'm doing it wrong. As soon as I realize I can watch TV while practicing, that's the time to find something new to introduce to the solve and make it hard again. Right now I'm able to see two or three pairs at a time, and I'm practicing picking which one to do next based on the orientation of the edges. If the top sticker (or front/back for edges in the E layer) is not one of the colors of the Z axis, then it's not oriented and I'll need to do a fancy insert or a rotation, so I do the other pairs where the top edge color is the same or opposite the front color. It's hard, or it was, but I'm becoming able to only have to do one rotation per solve if any at all by solving all pairs with correct orientation before rotating. I've even started to use hammer-ins to reorient F2L edges that would otherwise require a rotation, and so I avoid rotations and awkward algs. I've also been looking at ZZ and EOLine, and forcing myself through the inspection of five full EOLines every day, and it's paying off even though it was hell just trying to keep track of bad edges for the first few days.

I think many people just become complacent without realizing it, and then think they've hit their limit or that they're close.