[Oldmanmatt]

Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...

Especially given recent suggestions that empathy can be turned on and off by said psychopath (hence their ability to be " charming") and that many go Un-noticed as they have learned how to appear normal (war hero? Athlete?).

[Oldmanmatt]

Ok, this refers specifically to bone accrual (and seems largely to have viewed "impact" related osteogenesis ) but seems to suggest the possibility of exercise induced (or at least, enhanced) morphology.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/4/250.full

Is it possible, that given the prevalence of training facilities and greater access to the sport; that we have created a generation of "Super Climbers"?

Is it because they started younger?

Trained better at an early, formative, age?

[tomtom]

Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...

Especially given recent suggestions that empathy can be turned on and off by said psychopath (hence their ability to be " charming") and that many go Un-noticed as they have learned how to appear normal (war hero? Athlete?).

War hero is possibly the best analogy - they can turn off their empathy which makes them 'fearless' hence charging the enemy without fear for their life etc.. I think the work comes from a post WW2 study where they suggested that only 10% of US servicemen shot to kill - most shut their eyes/aimed elsewhere etc..

[Danny]

We should now speculate on which top climbers would score the highest on the appropriate psychopath test...I reckon Honnold would be up there.

 

[chillax]

I wonder what the relative occurrence percentages of psychopaths are between rock climbing and alpinism. Particularly at higher levels. The top end alpinists seem to regularly put themselves in perilous situations for extended periods of time. I wonder if people put themselves in those positions due to pre-existing psychological makeup, or people undergo changes through the experience they find valuable? Are good alpinists born or made? And stretching the "War Hero" analogy somewhat, can climbing lead to PTSD in certain cases?

All off topic ramblings I'm afraid. On the subject of natural talent I have nothing to say, having never possessed any.

[Oldmanmatt]

There is no question that climbing can lead to PTSD (not in my mind, anyway). Every "Epic" leaves a scar. We've all had close calls, surely?
PTSD is a progressive condition, relative to the severity of the Trauma.
If you we're once stung by a wasp, and now you are scared of wasps; then you have PTSD.
(That's not the best example, but I made it trivial to make the point).

[a dense loner]

From natural talent to war heroes being psychopaths. Fantastic

[webbo]

Psychopaths having the ability to turn empathy on and off mmmmm. I think you might find that they simply don't have any but what they can do is pretend to have it. Also Psychopathy is more like a sliding scale, we all can be a bit Psychopathic if it suits us but usually we are aware we are being a bit twatish. Where as someone with an impulsive anti social personality disorder doesn't give shit.

[Oldmanmatt]

Psychopaths having the ability to turn empathy on and off mmmmm. I think you might find that they simply don't have any but what they can do is pretend to have it. Also Psychopathy is more like a sliding scale, we all can be a bit Psychopathic if it suits us but usually we are aware we are being a bit twatish. Where as someone with an impulsive anti social personality disorder doesn't give shit.

But that presupposes empathy to be an innate feature of the human conscious, rather than a learned response? FWIW, I'm inclined to agree, merely citing an article from the science page of a newspaper earlier.
If there was a single "top climber" morphology, I think you could argue for a physical talent. Given the variety of body types and dimensions within the upper echelons of the sport, this is surely harder to assert?

The difficulty for the armchair researcher is, that it's so much harder to deduce personality from photographs and Vimeo clips....

So, Hypothesis is stretching the guess work of this interested party (who is, in fact, laid on a sofa, whilst writing; being a stage down from Armchair researcher).

[Boredboy]

There is no question that climbing can lead to PTSD (not in my mind, anyway). Every "Epic" leaves a scar. We've all had close calls, surely?
PTSD is a progressive condition, relative to the severity of the Trauma.
If you we're once stung by a wasp, and now you are scared of wasps; then you have PTSD.
(That's not the best example, but I made it trivial to make the point).

Sounds more like 'wasp phobia' to me

[mrjonathanr]

Has this article in support of talent / a more nuanced view been posted?

[slackline]

Has this article in support of talent / a more nuanced view been posted?

Yes (I was too lazy to post it to multiple threads though).

[Danny]

Over-simplistic notions like the 10,000 hour rule come to prominence in the mainstream media, and also in scientific literature, primarily because we love elegant, parsimonious explanations for the things we observe. 

This is well embodied in the principle of Occam's Razor, but William of Occam clearly didn't work with any kind of biological system. At best, they're messy, complicated and vague. For biologists, Occam's razor is a bit of a fallacy.

As a very broad observation, the 10, 000 hour rule has some merit: this may well be the kind of experience that many of the best climbers required to approach the top of their game on average. But the real interest lies in the variance.



         

[Oldmanmatt]

I suspect it would be all but impossible to determine whether it was the hours put in or the predisposition of the achiever to put in those hours, that was the critical factor.
Surely a study would have to look primarily at the psychology of the achiever versus a control group (significantly larger than the study group)?
Otherwise, you would have to follow a truly massive group, from infancy to mid 20's; with no guarantee that any top sport star or virtuoso would emerge from that group?
And then...
What about the Para-climbers, like Fran?
She's an above average climber, compared to most able bodied climbers and yet...

[krymson]

One interesting factor is previous calling

A few of the climbers  I know who got strong quick did things before which may have helped

-3 were fairly serious martial artists. 2 kung fu, 1 tae kwon do . I'm not 100 sure of the cross over but i'm not sure it's coincidence either. perhaps the training/discipline aspect?

-1 is a painter/tradesman... does that help??

-1 was a carpenter - hand strength, obviously

-1 did parkour  - great dynamic ability

These folks started off climbing just like the rest of us but maybe they had a head start of sorts.

[a dense loner]

Nonsense, painting gets you good at climbing? This isn't karate kid
Carpenters have strong hands? Nonsense
All we're talking about is people who aren't useless lazy fuckers responding to training quicker than people who are

[slackline]

Was chatting to a friend the other day who'd read some articles that some people simply do not respond to training whilst others do.

Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation. (full-text freely available).

Individuals who have a "natural talent" and respond to training will reach the zeniths of performance.  Some might have "natural talent" but won't respond so well to training and won't reach the lofty heights of those who do.  You might not have any "natural talent" but respond well to training reaching similar levels to those with "natural talent" but with a lot of hard work.  Then there are others who have neither who just enjoy the activity regardless of the level of performance.

[duncan]

Oh yeah, Don't underestimate the difference the pool of talent makes.  Being surrounded by other strong climbers makes a HUGE difference.  I think this is why you see these hotspots of talent develop from time to time.  Think Yosemite in the 70's, Sheffield in the Late 80-early 90's, Salt Lake City in the mid 90's, the Hueco group in the early to mid 90's, the Swiss/Austrian powerhouses of the late 90's, the Spanish enduro monsters of the early 2000's, etc. 

And the societal factors that predisposed to those talent pools forming in those places at those times.

The biopsychosocial model suggest health is best understood in as combination of biological, psychological and social factors rather than purely in biomedical terms. Most people overestimate the importance of biological factors (e.g. x-ray findings) and underestimate the effects of psychology (patient beliefs about their problem) and social factors (wealth, education).  In reality it is the social factors that are usually the most important in predicting who gets sick, who gets better, and who does not. 

The same goes for climbing. We tend to overestimate the importance of biology ('talent', number of seconds hang on the beastmaker) on climbing performance and underestimate psychological factors (belief about what constitutes ‘hard’, acceptance of risk) and especially social factors (attitude of partner to climbing, distance to the crag from home, work demands, societal attitudes to leisure activity).  Biological factors are perceived as easiest to manipulate and there is probably the unconscious influence of Comte’s hierarchy of science (mathematics at the top, biology in the middle, sociology barely scraping in at the bottom).

So put most effort into manipulating your limiting social factors (ie retire and move to Squamish). I really should get out of London. Or learn Polish.

[Jaspersharpe]

This is a really good article on the subject of sporting success (and the possible reasons for it):

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/669963.html

[Sasquatch]

I remember reading a while back (probably like 10years or so) about the impact physical activity (organized sports or just active play) during pre-puberty ages (6-12ish) had on physical abilities as an adult.  I can't recall if it was some rubbish article or if it was based on some type of study, but the general idea was that the level of physical activity during this time period played a massive role in adults ability to learn and improve at sports/physical stuff later in life.  I don't recall any discussion about causation, just a correlation, so it could easily be attributal to anything....

[webbo]

I remember reading something similar about early development. Also I'm sure it said you couldn't develop faster reflexes past the age of 12, any increase in speed had to come from stronger muscles past this age.

[nai]

Think the 10,000 hour thing has be mentioned somewhere in this thread, bit of discussion from the author:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/08/psychology-ten-thousand-hour-rule-complexity.html

[gme]

I really do believe that you can get to a very high level purely on practice and not natural talent. Spend 10000 hours correctly practicing a certain sport and you will achieve an "expert level" of that activity regardless of natural ability. However to be truly exceptional at something needs both. The difference in being expert and the best is often as big as the difference between punter and expert.

I would wager a bet that if anyone spent 10000 hours (20 hours a week for 10 years)hitting golf balls under correct guidance they would reach what would be considered an expert/pro level, however they probably would not be tiger woods.

The only limiting factors are body type and size which do shape which sports are best to pursue. I would suggest that the requirements for a world champion rower and a 9b+ sports climber may differ.

Pick the right one at the right age and put in the hours and you will become and expert. 

To bastadise a very famous quote "the more i practice the more naturally talented i become"

[Jaspersharpe]

Spot on.

The golf analogy is obviously true seeing as there are many thousands of pro golfers around the World who will have practiced at least that much but will never have a hope of winning a major, let alone being as successful as Tiger.

[lmarenzi]

Does anyone around here actually play golf?

There must be thousands of golfers in England alone who have played 10,000 hours of golf (which equates to 20 years of two rounds of golf and a session on the driving range per week) who have no hope of ever getting a single digit handicap.

Jack Nicklaus hit 70 on his home course at age 13, after having played only three years. By then he was playing off +3.

Don't really know if I would call it talent. It's just the way it is.