Genetics / Natural Talent vs Hard Work / Practice

[Chris Choi]

Discussion moved from Feliks Zemdegs 18 consecutive Sub 7 3x3 solves

I mean, I guess he has been cubing a very long time, so it is expected of him. I think with enough practice and determination, anyone can be like him. And I mean a lot of practice.

 

[CuBouz]

I mean, I guess he has been cubing a very long time, so it is expected of him. I think with enough practice and determination, anyone can be like him. And I mean a lot of practice.

May be but let's not forget that there were a lot of people who had already been cubing longer and probably practicing more than Feliks and they were all mercilessly overtaken by him

 

[Matt11111]

May be but let's not forget that there were a lot of people who had already been cubing longer and probably practicing more than Feliks and they were all mercilessly overtaken by him

But then people like Mats, Lucas, and Kevin started taking his world records.

 

[CubePro]

May be but let's not forget that there were a lot of people who had already been cubing longer and probably practicing more than Feliks and they were all mercilessly overtaken by him

The thing is that, he's never given up cubing or I think he hasn't taken a too long break and he has been practicing as he used to when he started (if not more that is). Another thing is that for many people their jobs and studies are more important than cubing so they don't practice as they used to.
@CriticalCubing Wow you too must be good at sune! His sune just looks like a R U R' lol

 

[Dene]

I mean, I guess he has been cubing a very long time, so it is expected of him. I think with enough practice and determination, anyone can be like him. And I mean a lot of practice.

I don't think so. You can practise sprinting as much as you like, you'll never outrun Usain Bolt unless you have the genetics. Feliks has a brain that processes this particular ability better than most (taking in patterns, processing combinations, working out a solution, and sending that information to the fingers). That, combined with a lot of practise, made him by far better than anyone else. To match him would take the combination of natural ability with an enormous amount of practise.

 

[imvelox]

I don't think so. You can practise sprinting as much as you like, you'll never outrun Usain Bolt unless you have the genetics. Feliks has a brain that processes this particular ability better than most (taking in patterns, processing combinations, working out a solution, and sending that information to the fingers). That, combined with a lot of practise, made him by far better than anyone else. To match him would take the combination of natural ability with an enormous amount of practise.

lelno
practice

 

[SweetSolver]

I don't think so. You can practise sprinting as much as you like, you'll never outrun Usain Bolt unless you have the genetics. Feliks has a brain that processes this particular ability better than most (taking in patterns, processing combinations, working out a solution, and sending that information to the fingers). That, combined with a lot of practise, made him by far better than anyone else. To match him would take the combination of natural ability with an enormous amount of practise.

Yeah agreed, I think it's a combination of both. Genetics plays a role in most things, however I think with the right practice methods you can achieve a fair bit. Especially when you put in the huge amount of hours like Feliks and Usain.

 

[pjk]

I don't think so. You can practise sprinting as much as you like, you'll never outrun Usain Bolt unless you have the genetics. Feliks has a brain that processes this particular ability better than most (taking in patterns, processing combinations, working out a solution, and sending that information to the fingers). That, combined with a lot of practise, made him by far better than anyone else. To match him would take the combination of natural ability with an enormous amount of practise.

This is a good discussion to have, though perhaps for a new topic. How much of a role does talent play in cubing vs. acquired skill? I tend to think it is far far more acquired skill rather than some natural born talent. Feliks probably has practiced more than anyone in the world, and in addition he probably did some practice more deliberately, such as starting out as color neutral, or building daily routines, or picking the right things to practice at the right time, etc. Combine that with motivation and I think that's more why he's #1.

I'd be curious to hear Feliks' perspective on this. Do you think you have an innate ability that others don't or do you think you just deliberately practiced more than others?

 

[David Zemdegs]

Motivation and innate ability sure, but combined with an insane amount of practice. But I am sure there are others in the cubing community that have that same combination.

 

[kcl]

I think anybody can become world class no matter their amount of natural ability provided they start young, but I think it takes some amount of natural ability in addition to the hard work to become one of the best in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faz]

This is a good discussion to have, though perhaps for a new topic. How much of a role does talent play in cubing vs. acquired skill? I tend to think it is far far more acquired skill rather than some natural born talent. Feliks probably has practiced more than anyone in the world, and in addition he probably did some practice more deliberately, such as starting out as color neutral, or building daily routines, or picking the right things to practice at the right time, etc. Combine that with motivation and I think that's more why he's #1.

I'd be curious to hear Feliks' perspective on this. Do you think you have an innate ability that others don't or do you think you just deliberately practiced more than others?

A bit of both I guess. I definitely lucked into the colour neutral thing though - just happened to watch the right video just as I was starting out.

I'm not sure if I've physically practiced cubing more than anyone else, that's very hard to measure, And then there's passive learning such as reading forums and watching youtube tutorials.

I've never had any actual daily routines - before big competitions I try to spread my practice evenly across all my events, but that's the extent of it. I'd say I actually spend about 50% of my cubing time doing casual solves, and the other 50% doing timed solves and averages.

Motivation and passion are also fairly important, I suppose.

 

[CriticalCubing]

A bit of both I guess. I definitely lucked into the colour neutral thing though - just happened to watch the right video just as I was starting out.

I'm not sure if I've physically practiced cubing more than anyone else, that's very hard to measure, And then there's passive learning such as reading forums and watching youtube tutorials.

I've never had any actual daily routines - before big competitions I try to spread my practice evenly across all my events, but that's the extent of it. I'd say I actually spend about 50% of my cubing time doing casual solves, and the other 50% doing timed solves and averages.

Motivation and passion are also fairly important, I suppose.

How many timed solves do you do a day? and how many untimed ones? Sorry for noob question xD

 

[Ollie]

I think his point is that there isn't an x amount of solves that you need to do to improve. I'd guess that during his casual solves he is looking to try new techniques, work on recognition or learn new algs, and the timed solves bring all these together.

Constructive solves = working on your weakest areas, not just doing 1000 solves and not learning anything.

Passion keeps you going when you feel like you've hit a wall or when someone beats you.

But I don't think there are genetic dispositions - we all have virtually the same hardware.

 

[Faz]

How many timed solves do you do a day? and how many untimed ones? Sorry for noob question xD

On average in 2015, I'd estimate maybe 30 mins a day of casual solving - and by that I mean just playing with a cube whilst sitting around watching TV, or waiting for something.

As for timed solves, I probably only do qqtimer sessions about 3 times per week, and they can range from 30 minutes to many hours. It depends on how I'm feeling, and how busy I am on a given day/week.

 

[CriticalCubing]

On average in 2015, I'd estimate maybe 30 mins a day of casual solving - and by that I mean just playing with a cube whilst sitting around watching TV, or waiting for something.

As for timed solves, I probably only do qqtimer sessions about 3 times per week, and they can range from 30 minutes to many hours. It depends on how I'm feeling, and how busy I am on a given day/week.

Thanks Feliks . I asked that question because I have noticed the more timed solves I do, the more bad my lookahead tends to get. Recently, I tested this out. I did an average of 12 before bed for a week while casually solving all day that week, and surprisingly my lookahead was much more fluid without any pauses and my times were better. Again, thanks for the answer Have a good day

 

[Dene]

I think anybody can become world class no matter their amount of natural ability provided they start young, but I think it takes some amount of natural ability in addition to the hard work to become one of the best in the world.

Quite simply, you're wrong. In the past, when world records weren't so great, sure anyone could achieve it. And certainly in events that have yet to get close to the human limits, perhaps anyone with enough practise could get there.

But every individual person has their own physical limitations. As stated before, practise as much as you like, you will most likely never be able to outsprint Usain Bolt, because his body is physically superior at that ability. Most people have bodies that are literally not physically capable of moving fast enough to keep up with Bolt (even if you took performance enhancers).

The same thing goes for a range of skills. Each individual has their own limits, and those limits aren't the same for everyone. If we assume that Feliks has limits superior to most people, and we assume that he is near those limits, then we can assume he has pushed times down to where most people would be physically incapable of matching him.

It might be hard for you to understand if you are someone who has limits similar to Feliks. You probably think "but it's easy for me, I don't get why anyone else wouldn't be able to if they just tried hard enough". This is a natural reaction, because by me saying "genetics are important" you feel your hard work practising is undervalued.

But let me ask you this: in your life experience, have you been able to run as fast as everyone else? Have you been able to jump as high as everyone else? Have you been able to bench press as much as everyone else? Have you been able to throw a ball as hard and far as everyone else? Do you excel at physics, chemistry, biology, maths, English, fine arts, acting, singing, writing, debating, geology, astronomy, dancing, orating, psychology, and medicine like everyone else?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and not everyone has the ability to be good at everything. Processing speed (look it up) is a thing that people have in different capacities, and to be world class at speedcubing requires a high capacity, that is genetically determined, that not everyone will have.

 

[pjk]

Quite simply, you're wrong. In the past, when world records weren't so great, sure anyone could achieve it. And certainly in events that have yet to get close to the human limits, perhaps anyone with enough practise could get there.

But every individual person has their own physical limitations. As stated before, practise as much as you like, you will most likely never be able to outsprint Usain Bolt, because his body is physically superior at that ability. Most people have bodies that are literally not physically capable of moving fast enough to keep up with Bolt (even if you took performance enhancers).

The same thing goes for a range of skills. Each individual has their own limits, and those limits aren't the same for everyone. If we assume that Feliks has limits superior to most people, and we assume that he is near those limits, then we can assume he has pushed times down to where most people would be physically incapable of matching him.

It might be hard for you to understand if you are someone who has limits similar to Feliks. You probably think "but it's easy for me, I don't get why anyone else wouldn't be able to if they just tried hard enough". This is a natural reaction, because by me saying "genetics are important" you feel your hard work practising is undervalued.

But let me ask you this: in your life experience, have you been able to run as fast as everyone else? Have you been able to jump as high as everyone else? Have you been able to bench press as much as everyone else? Have you been able to throw a ball as hard and far as everyone else? Do you excel at physics, chemistry, biology, maths, English, fine arts, acting, singing, writing, debating, geology, astronomy, dancing, orating, psychology, and medicine like everyone else?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and not everyone has the ability to be good at everything. Processing speed (look it up) is a thing that people have in different capacities, and to be world class at speedcubing requires a high capacity, that is genetically determined, that not everyone will have.

I think kclejeune was referring to cubing, not running. Certainly some things becoming world class would be impossible for most people because of genetics, many sports being some of them, like sprinting.

But the real question is, does cubing fit into one of those (at its modern day times)? I don't think it does. You're suggesting Feliks and other world class cubers have some sort of genetic advantage, but how, where, and why do you derive this?

Like Feliks mentioned, practice is difficult to measure. But I'd guess, if you took the top 100 3x3 solvers in the world, they probably all have practiced more and better than virtually everyone else, and it isn't some genetic advantage they have on other solvers.

 

[shadowslice e]

Spoiler

Quite simply, you're wrong. In the past, when world records weren't so great, sure anyone could achieve it. And certainly in events that have yet to get close to the human limits, perhaps anyone with enough practise could get there.

But every individual person has their own physical limitations. As stated before, practise as much as you like, you will most likely never be able to outsprint Usain Bolt, because his body is physically superior at that ability. Most people have bodies that are literally not physically capable of moving fast enough to keep up with Bolt (even if you took performance enhancers).

The same thing goes for a range of skills. Each individual has their own limits, and those limits aren't the same for everyone. If we assume that Feliks has limits superior to most people, and we assume that he is near those limits, then we can assume he has pushed times down to where most people would be physically incapable of matching him.

It might be hard for you to understand if you are someone who has limits similar to Feliks. You probably think "but it's easy for me, I don't get why anyone else wouldn't be able to if they just tried hard enough". This is a natural reaction, because by me saying "genetics are important" you feel your hard work practising is undervalued.

But let me ask you this: in your life experience, have you been able to run as fast as everyone else? Have you been able to jump as high as everyone else? Have you been able to bench press as much as everyone else? Have you been able to throw a ball as hard and far as everyone else? Do you excel at physics, chemistry, biology, maths, English, fine arts, acting, singing, writing, debating, geology, astronomy, dancing, orating, psychology, and medicine like everyone else?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and not everyone has the ability to be good at everything. Processing speed (look it up) is a thing that people have in different capacities, and to be world class at speedcubing requires a high capacity, that is genetically determined, that not everyone will have.

He said world class not world records (I would agree the ability to set world records may need more than just practice). Cubing is less of a physical sport than athletics and anyone with a whole mind and normal physicality should be able to reach world standard (maybe top 100) if they practise and practise and practise and practise with only that goal in mind.

Sure there are other things that may cause limitations such as lack of practise time which could slow progress so the top 100 may have an advantage which helps them progress faster but in general if you really want to be world standard, you could get there like with chess. There are clearly some who are more talented and naturally better but anyone who wants to and had enough practise time and motivavtion could in theory reach that level.

 

[Isaac Lai]

Quite simply, you're wrong. In the past, when world records weren't so great, sure anyone could achieve it. And certainly in events that have yet to get close to the human limits, perhaps anyone with enough practise could get there.

But every individual person has their own physical limitations. As stated before, practise as much as you like, you will most likely never be able to outsprint Usain Bolt, because his body is physically superior at that ability. Most people have bodies that are literally not physically capable of moving fast enough to keep up with Bolt (even if you took performance enhancers).

The same thing goes for a range of skills. Each individual has their own limits, and those limits aren't the same for everyone. If we assume that Feliks has limits superior to most people, and we assume that he is near those limits, then we can assume he has pushed times down to where most people would be physically incapable of matching him.

It might be hard for you to understand if you are someone who has limits similar to Feliks. You probably think "but it's easy for me, I don't get why anyone else wouldn't be able to if they just tried hard enough". This is a natural reaction, because by me saying "genetics are important" you feel your hard work practising is undervalued.

But let me ask you this: in your life experience, have you been able to run as fast as everyone else? Have you been able to jump as high as everyone else? Have you been able to bench press as much as everyone else? Have you been able to throw a ball as hard and far as everyone else? Do you excel at physics, chemistry, biology, maths, English, fine arts, acting, singing, writing, debating, geology, astronomy, dancing, orating, psychology, and medicine like everyone else?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and not everyone has the ability to be good at everything. Processing speed (look it up) is a thing that people have in different capacities, and to be world class at speedcubing requires a high capacity, that is genetically determined, that not everyone will have.

I disagree. The reason why Usain Bolt is so fast at running is because he started young, and has trained a lot. He spent his a lot of time in his childhood playing cricket and football, and (to quote him) "didn't really think about anything except sports". He ran in school meets and continued to play a lot of sports later on; hence, he would already have had good fitness and been able to run fairly fast. Coupled with specialised training and a whole lot of practice and hard work, he was able to become the fastest in the world.

Likewise, in cubing, Feliks has been able to become the best in the world because of the copious amounts of practice which he has put in. This practice has allowed him to recognise patterns, track pieces in perform algorithms (or even F2L sequences) extremely fast. Why can't everyone (at this point) do it? Because they either simply have not practised enough, or have not effectively practised enough. In Feliks' case, he was probably lucky when he chose to become colour neutral, chose to solve some F2L pairs in a certain way, chose to use certain algorithms, etc. all of which allowed him to rise to the top. Feliks is able to obtain an optimal processing speed for cubing simply because he has a better understanding of the puzzle (in relation to 3x3 speedsolving) and has practiced solving it so many times.

Feliks also practiced and became world-class at a combination of events (2-7, OH and megaminx) which arguably helps 3x3 the most. Though these events do not affect 3x3 times directly, they do have some bearing on improving lookahead. It is noteworthy that nobody is world-class in this combination of events except Feliks. They are a few who come close (notably Rob Yau, Kevin Costello III and Lucas Wesche) but they are all slower than Feliks in every event (except one in the case of Lucas).

To address your other point about excelling in everything: the reason why we do not excel in any of these other areas is because we have not practiced them enough. It is said that 10,000 hours (or loosely 10 years) of deliberate practice is needed to really excel in any given field; since Feliks hasn't even reached this mark (or neither has anyone else, for that matter), how can we be expected to excel in so many other areas when we can't even do so for cubing?

I strongly believe that 'geniuses' are made, not born.

 

[onionhoney]

Sure if you practice, you will improve and approach your limit, and I believe the level of talent for speedcubing, if there exists such a thing, is distributed far more evenly among ordinary people than say sprinting, which is why this whole "practice makes world-class" thing makes some sense.

However, I'd like to point out that the value of talent is magnified through the Matthew Effect. Doing lots of practice is not only the cause for but also the effect of becoming faster. We practice not simply because we WANT to make progress, but rather we feel confident in making progress. That's why a tad of talent goes a long way: those who started out with little cognitive advantage will be motivated to practice a little bit more, and become a little bit better than his peers. This adds to his belief that he is somewhat good at improving, which pushes him harder in practicing. By now, he who has a little more talent and spends a little more time in practicing will improve noticeably faster than an average person, which may further convince him of his superior ability, pushing him even harder. Through this positive feedback loop, talent becomes a cumulative advantage. People are unwilling to practice not just because they forget the law of practice. They just gradually lose faith in it because they are a little bit slower than their talented friend in the first few hours of contact.