I left for New Years and come back a few days later to have an overwhelming amount to read and reply to. Having conversations like this is better for a podcast style or something because typing takes ages, and if everyone chimes in, it gets overwhelming to keep up with.
As mentioned above, I believe it has a lot to do with processing speed. This generally involves taking in simple information, the brain processing the response, then sending out the necessary signals to act on it. It isn't perfectly comparable, but if everyone on here took
this reaction time test, they'd get different results. I just did it quickly and got ~260ms reaction time, which seems to be a bit slower than average. This would initially suggest that no matter how hard I tried I would always be a bit slower than the average person as far as reaction time is concerned.
Cubing is obviously different to pure reaction time because you have control over where things are moving etc. etc. but that's not the point. What matters here is the speed at which the brain is able to process information, and get signals back to your fingers. Not everyone in the world is going to be identically capable at this. For some people, their brain will just process the information quicker. For others, the signals that get sent to the fingers will travel faster. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do to influence this. It is a genetic limitation that everyone has in different capacity. Therefore not everyone is going to be equally capable at speedcubing.
As for Feliks himself, obviously I have no evidence to show that he has superior processing speed. But given no one is able to get close to his times, despite people practising astronomical amounts, it suggests that Feliks likely has superior genetic ability. This, combined with his huge efforts practising, put him out of the range of the vast majority of people.
Another thing worth noting is the speed at which some people seem to get really good. I can absolutely guarantee that by the time Feliks was faster than me, I had spent much more time practising. Why did he get so much faster so much quicker? We see this time and again, with some people getting super fast out of nowhere, and you know they haven't practised as much as yourself all up, yet they're miles ahead of you. And before anyone says "it's all about effective practise bla bla bla", Feliks himself has stated many times that he never really did any special practise, so really that argument is dead.
The whole free will debate aside, lets discuss this more.
I don't think using sports as a comparison to cubing is fair. While it does portray that not everyone can reach a certain level at certain things, it does little in describing where the genetic component of cubing is. I agree that genetics do have an affect, but it is very small.
You mention reaction time: the skew in results could be from age, prior experiences regarding reaction, practice with reaction, etc. Note in cubing you first start out moving slow and practice to become quicker, both physically and recognizing things mentally. You can practice to improve, like most things in life.
I agree with you that some people will be able to process things faster naturally, but that doesn't mean people without that advantage can't reach the same levels. If cubing is around long enough and there is enough competition and incentive to improve, there will be a point where without a genetic advantage you can't compete. But I don't think we're there yet, and nothing really shows this being the case other than our assumptions.
I'm not saying that no one will come close. It certainly seems like he has exceptional memory skills. But it's harder to say if he's taken the event to near its limits because not enough people have tried.
That's the key, where are the limits? Years ago people were saying Matyas Kuti was reaching the limits, which in hindsight clearly wasn't the case. Obviously Feliks is closer to reaching the limits since times have declined, but that isn't to say cubing is so competitive that limits today are now only reached by people of a certain gene pool. We see world records being broken continuously (and often by people who have only been cubing the last couple years) so clearly the limits aren't reached or too close yet. There will probably be a day where a world record is only broken every few years, if cubing is around long enough and interest stays after records aren't attainable without huge practice (like say, becoming a grandmaster in Chess, which is very competitive).
It seems people in this thread are all prepared to deny that everyone has different limits in every skill possible, including "brain" skills. Work ethic is indeed important, and your genetics will strongly contribute to that too. But no amount of determination will make you the best in the world at sprinting if you don't have suitable genetics; no amount of practise will make you a memory champion if you aren't born with an outstanding memory capacity; and no amount of speedcubing practise will make you the best in the world if your body and brain aren't built in the right way.
You just tied sprinting to memory and cubing. Sprinting has been competitive for far longer so the limits are higher, and is physically biased - hence why the best runners are all black (extra muscle). I don't think those sports are up for debate really, nor should be compared to the current level of memory or cubing. I'd argue that both the memory championships and the cubing championships are still open to almost anyone who is physically able (ask the people who win the memory tournaments - the former US Memory champion
wrote a book which inspired the latest world champion to even get started). The mental limits I don't think are close to being reached, and that is based off the fact that we see new people jump into the sports and dominate within a rather short period of time. Though they should be discussed separate, I don't think memory or cubing have reached limits where you need a gene advantage to win championships.
I have an analogy that I've been working on that is how I think of these things. This has no basis in science, and is simply based on observations from my experience. This relates to matters of intelligence and not to things like sports or physical skill.
I think there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. I define knowledge as what you know, and intelligence as "the relative ease with which you can learn new things." Picture a water tower with a capacity of 1000 liters. The capacity of this tower is like your capacity for knowledge. For most everyone, the capacity for knowledge is enormous. Now picture that there is an opening at the top of this tower where you pour in the water. The size of this opening is your intelligence. A large opening allows you to pour in water quickly. A small opening means you have to pour in water more slowly.
An expert at something is someone who has a water tower that is very full of water (knowledge). The person's intelligence determines how long it took them to fill the tower, but even someone with low intelligence, given enough time and dedication, can gain a tremendous level of knowledge.
However, I do believe that as intelligence increases, so too does the capacity for knowledge. Back to cubing. I think nearly anyone can gain a very high level of knowledge no matter your intelligence, but only up to a point. Those with higher intelligence can learn more easily, and at the very highest levels will also have a slightly higher capacity for knowledge.
I feel like I personally have a large knowledge about cubing, but probably an average or less than average intelligence for it. I've always been very slow to break personal cubing barriers compared to the average, but as long as I stay dedicated and practice a lot I do eventually get there. I don't think I have the capacity for knowledge to get to Feliks level, but I think even I could get sub-10 on average with a tremendous level of effort and dedication. I could be wrong in that prediction, but I think it is not unreasonable.
The question is, is the "tremendous level of knowledge" beyond what most people can know today. I think we've barely tapped into the knowledge that can and will be acquired with the right technology.
As for your average intelligence: what's the barrier stopping you from getting to Feliks level? Obviously you guys are different ages and that could very well play into it, but you also have potentially bad habits that are harder for you to break, less time, perhaps less motiviation to win worlds (based off age, outlook, etc.), less incentive, etc. If you were his age, started at his time with all the hardware and info available, could you have got to his level?
I've thought about this whole topic a fair bit over the years, and I think expectations play a huge role. Yes, hardware has allowed for us to spin faster, the big community has allowed us to share and aquire knowledge which helps, but I think seeing the limits affects expectations. 10 years ago we expected 11 seconds to be insanely hard to reach, but today it seems very doable because you see so many people doing it. If the world record is 15 seconds, that expectation heavily influences how fast we think we can get, our motivation, etc., which in turn influences what we accomplish.
In discussing the influence of static genetic advantages in speed-solving, I don't think it is correct to reference athletics. The malleability of the human body toward performing a physical skill is different from the malleability of the human brain toward an intellectual goal.
Physical traits that cannot be improved with training cannot instead be overcome with a change in thought. However, intellectual goals can often be achieved through a change in approach or perspective.
Less abstractly, I mean that physical skills cannot be substituted. If you have below average leg length but above average arm length, running upside-down on your hands will not make you an above average runner.
Unlike physical training, the conceptual nature of intellectual goals allows variety in approach. Intellectual skills can be used in place of one another if necessary. A person with a below average ability to remember numbers may find it difficult to remember phone numbers. However, if that person has an above average ability to remember visual patterns, they may become above average at remembering phone numbers by focusing on the path made on the number pad when dialing. Even a simple analogy may turn a student's confusion into immediate understanding.
Those are also things that can be improved. It is obvious that memory, reaction, recognition, etc. can all be improved. It was a wide awakening when I realized how I improved with blindfold cubing when I practiced. You see this all over cubing, and it is amazing to see how deliberate practice can really improve results, whether it be memory or something else. The question is, at what limit can your mind no longer improve? Surely some people will genetically have some advantages, but in cubing we haven't seen anything obvious that says such.
I disagree with you almost entirely, because I believe speedcubing is almost entirely physical, and the intellectual aspect has very little to do with it. After all, a key term in speedcubing is muscle memory. I highly doubt Feliks spends too much time thinking about his next move, but rather just doing.
I think it is far more intellectual and less physical. Feliks, along with all other cubers, don't think about algs once they are in their muslce memory. And that is because we
train them to be that way, and anyone can. The question is, to what limit can we train them? You suggest we've passed the point where anyone can reach it through training, but I suggest otherwise. Sure genetics play a role, but we aren't to the limit where people without whatever genetic advantage can't reach the same speed.
Sure, us older cubers especially have our biases against this because 7 seconds seems impossible for us now. I think we neglect the age we're in now with great hardware, abundant information, quite a competitive and vibrant community, more money in the game, the sheer amount people practice today, our expectations, our age, our old bad habits, etc. that all influence how we look at it that give us this bias.
But this part I've quoted has wording that is a bit strong (i.e. "large role") so I have to clarify my own stance. I suspect you will agree with me on this. In my opinion, genetics play a role in only two ways:
- The speed at which improvement progresses
- The capabilities of speed at one's physical limits
I agree, though I think genetics is a much smaller role than you think in cubing. Regarding 1, I think it is more influenced by the method of practice you choose, and the time you put in (1 year for 1 person could mean 400 hours or it could mean 2000 hours to another person - so total time). Regarding 2, I don't think we're at the physical limits yet, and I don't see any reason to believe we've reached that level.
