Reddit reviews Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice

You've kind of answered your own original question there. African's don't dominate sport, because black people are not genetically superior sports people.


This is covered at length in the book Bounce, but i'll summarise the key points here.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546
Also, this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657

1. Few actual genetic differences.
Skin colour is not a good indicator of genetic difference. There's far more genetic deviation within races, than between them. So, skin colour, is not indicative of very different DNA. 2 white guys from different European countries, are as likely to be different as 1 white guy from Europe and 1 white guy from Africa. Race is a social construct, not a biological one. http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/opp/racesnyt.html

2. Economics.
Growing up as a black kid in the US, on average, you're going to crappier schools, and have fewer professional role models. Therefore, for many people sports are seen as the way out. White kids have sport, but also many other options.

3. Racism towards whites/for blacks.
People have the belief that you share, therefore if two equal athletes are presented, one is black and one white, on average, people rate the black athlete higher. Aggregate this over time, and you see more black people getting the breaks, and increasing this misconception. http://aom.org/News/Press-Releases/Study-finds-clue-to-scarcity-of-African-American-top-executives-in-the-way-news-reports-assess-Black-and-White-quarterbacks.aspx

4. Generalization
There's a common belief that 'black people' are better at running than white people. If you look at the history of the 100meters, and long distance running, it almost seems impossible to deny. However, break it down and you'll find it's not black people, but countries. e.g. Caribbean islands have dominated sprinting. Similarly, people say black people are good long distance runners, but it's not. It's mostly Kenyans. But actually it's not, it's mostly those from the Nandi region. Which brings me to point 5.

5. Environment
Many long distance runners are from the Nandi region of Kenya. This is an interesting region. We could assume that for some reason they genetically evolved to be better runners in this region. However, there's some interesting facts about this place. Namely, there's very few schools and children who want to go to school need to run many kilometres to and from school. Secondly, it's a high altitude region. Essentially, kids are training to be marathon runners from a young age. This is not a black thing, it's a regional thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/world_olympic_dreams/8886705.stm



Read these articles, read the book above, and then do your best not to perpetuate this 'positive' racism, it's wrong, and it's dangerous.

There's a great book about this topic:

Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by Matthew Syed

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

Not a podcast but I highly recommend checking out the book "Bounce"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502714454&sr=8-1&keywords=bounce

It's full of stuff about mentally preparing, placebos, what actually happens when you choke. It's very much worth the read :)

As I said... Loser mentality. Also has no grounds in science.

Read 'Bounce'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

Tiger Woods dad was an amateur golf player and he trained him since he was a baby. His whole childhood was focused around trainings as a gold player.

David Beckham has an extreme case of OCD. He went every day to the park near his house and shot a ball at the same spot of a wall there. Thats how he gained his shot technique.

So basically, yes, what you do as a child has a massive effect on what people may be consider as "talent". If you're interested on the topic read this book, it answers to your question.

I completely agree with that Saint_Chad_of_Mercia and alreadyredschool have said. And if you're talking about a serious habit-forming addiction like alcohol then breaking the chain can be incredibly tough.

But I firmly believe that we have the power within ourselves to change, it's just that in many cases we want the outcome without the investing in the process.

There is a book called "Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice" written by Matthew Syed, who used to be the British number 1 in table tennis. And he asserts that the importance of talent is overrated, and what is really required to get extremely good at something, possibly close to world-class level, is 10,000 hours of sustained, quality practice. I don't entirely agree with him, actually, but the point is that you can get good at virtually anything if you try really hard.

So I heard about this guy who read the book and decided to carry out a challenge on the Internet. He was rubbish at sport, uncoordinated, had never played table tennis before in his life. And he decided he was going to practice table tennis every day for a year, and try to get to top 250 in Britain level. And he filmed the process every day for a vlog.

When he started he was absolutely atrocious. By the end of the year, he was a tournament-standard table tennis player:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y21uwFUgkE

For me, this is an extremely inspiring video because it shows that if you want to get good at something then you can do it. It just depends on what level of commitment you're willing to make and what sort of investment you're willing to make in achieving your goals. It doesn't mean that anyone can do anything, but it does mean that if you set yourself reasonable goals in life then the only thing stopping you from achieving them is yourself.

If people really wanted to change whatever aspect of themselves that they believe needs to change then they could. It's just that human beings are lazy, for a variety of reasons, and want the reward without the effort.

Here is an entire book full of peer reviewed research: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

This book *Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by former champion table tennis player Matthew Syed, deals with this question. I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanagh's read it, among other stuff like it.

Basically, at best there's a very clear correlation between people who are able to practice a sport-specific skill or skills, from a young age, for a very long time, and being really good at the specific sport later in life. What most people figure is genetics can be explained by this rule. Examples in the book include:

• Brazilians being disproportionately good at football (soccer) - because so many of the kids grow up playing football and, crucially, futsal, which is a similar sport played on a smaller field with a smaller ball, and so is much harder to play well, and makes going on to play regular football way easier.
  
  
• Kenyans being good runners - talks about how basically all the good Kenyan runners come from not all over Kenya but from one particular tribe, and this tribe's lifestyle brings them up running long distances from an early age or something. This article I found probably goes into more detail, but I'm too lazy to bother reading it right now.
  
  
• I think there are plenty others I forget, he talks about his own upbringing, playing table tennis for hours daily (he happened to live on the same street as a former champion player turned coach or something). Also about a European couple who decided to turn their daughters into champion tennis players simply by bringing them up playing the game a lot. I think their third daughter wasn't brought playing tennis at all and lo and behold, she's crap at it. Something like that.
  
  The book completely supports Kavanagh's premise, the idea that "natural talent" is a misconception because it conceals hours upon hours of hard work. Think Mike Tyson, adopted by Cus d'Amato. How many hours of boxing discussion did they have? How many hours of watching fight footage? Tyson was surrounded by the sport and it probably dominated his whole life at that stage, thinking about it every moment. No surprise he got pretty good at it.
  
  This all relates to the "10,000 hour rule" you often hear about. The book explains that this originally took the form of the "10 years rule", putting that an athlete would generally reach mastery of sport after 10 years of good practice. Supposing that the aspiring athlete can dedicate a maximum of 1000 hours per year to training gives us the 10,000 hours figure. Obviously this is a rough guide. But the point is, children who are brought up playing a sport, and have more time to dedicate to it when they're younger, hit the 10,000 hours point earlier, and get more hours overall than another athlete who starts later in life. But these kids are labelled "prodigies" and it's assumed to be genetic.
  
  That's the first half of the book in a nutshell. The second half kinda meanders around other sports-related topics, a bit on roiding and stuff, but the first half is relevant to this discussion. After reading it I agree with it, and so I agree with Kavanagh here. And as I said, it would not surprise me in the slightest if Kavanagh has read this same book.
  
  The takeaway is: if you want to be good at sport, train more. Don't use genetics as an excuse.

It was interesting reading this guys story, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

This book alleges that talent isn't something you are born with but something that comes with practice -e.g Tiger Woods wasn't born a great golfer but made a great golfer with extremely strict and regular training from an an early age by his dad.

The example in the book is a street in the UK that produced multiple elite level table tennis players - rather than being "something in the water" the cause was actually one of their teachers was a former table tennis player who set up an after school club which gave the kids the opportunity for coaching and regular practice.

Of course this guys anecdote implies Lebron was a phenom from a young age and also that physically/explosively he was ahead of 18 year olds.

So the question is where does Lebrons ability come from - was it nature or nurture.

My guess is that the physical attributes eg the power and the jump height etc were natural - and the ability/skill came with nurture.

Your best bet is to contact your local academies/ soccer schools to see if they have any trails taking place. From my experience most places are willing to offer a trial game at the very least to a kid, from their point of view its always worth checking someone out. Failing this, ask his coach if he knows anyway of getting him a trail at a more advanced academy. This doesn't have to be at a professional club as there (in England at least) are private academies that can provide great opportunities too.

A trial could range from being invited to a few training sessions to a couple of games in their academies age group, it is always worth trying to get your kid into these if he's serious about playing as even if the academy decided against selecting him, advise they can provide can be fantastic.

I'd recommend you read a book called Bounce by Mathew Syed (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546) which focuses on athlete development and requirements to reach high ability level. If you feel like the weak link in your kids progression, the book should help give you some ideas on how you might be able to aid your son's improvement. The book may be a bit intimidating at first if you're not too clued up on sport but it's a really easy read, something I'd recommend to all parents/coaches as it provides a great insight.

I certainly don't have all the answers to this, and the area is a developing one, but my understanding comes from the reading i've done into the latest research into the area, not anecdotal evidence which is a notoriously fickle customer.

Furthermore, it's amazing how entrenched the idea of 'gifts' and 'talent' is, so much so, people will actively reject it when the opposite idea is presented, a problem well documented in a lot of the books on the topic e.g. Bounce, Talent is a Myth etc. which I strongly recommend if you want a more in-depth answer (and they're generally enjoyable books if you're interested in sport, especially Bounce).

As I mentioned in a comment above, we love the idea that people are born special, when the reality is much more mundane. But it's also much more positive; talent is not reserved for the few, with the right training, we can all do something amazing.

I recommend Bounce by Matthew Syed on this topic.

The authour tries to dispel the myth of talent, and does a really great job at it.