Nature v. Nurture

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Oct 19, 2009
639
0
I have to admit, when I posted about SuperFreakonomics, it was tongue-in-cheek, especially since most of the book (and the one before it) is as much about humor as it is about statistics. On a more serious note, having spent the past month or so reading various posts here, what I see is a lot of people who are passionate about softball, particularly passionate softball parents. I can see there is a lot of buy-in to the notion that limitless hard work and effort will ultimately win out over natural athletic talent. I can only buy into that so much, knowing that no matter how hard I work and how much I want it, I will never run a sub-4 minute mile!

I think I am realistic about my daughter's abilities. She's a good travel ball player for an 11 year old on a good 12U team. She plays center field and pitches. She bats 7th or 8th. She will probably get to play on her middle school team. I think making the high school team is a stretch. Playing D-1 is out of the question, though she might prove me wrong (you never know). If she had the chance to play in college, it would most likely be at a small D-3 school, in which case she would be playing because she continued to love the sport and nothing else. That is all OK with me.

She loves to pitch and has been going to lessons for the past year. She has me out throwing every chance we get, sometimes every day. However, she is no better than #4 on her travel team - she will never pitch this year on Sunday, and will rarely see circle time in pool play except in a blow out. She does however pitch rec league and will probably pitch for her middle school. I pay for lessons because she loves going. I look at it like I were paying for piano lessons - I don't pay for them thinking she has to make it to Carnegie Hall in order for it to be worthwhile.

I think many parents buy-in to the notion that limitless hardwork and effort will win out over natural talent because they are not realistic about their kids' abilities. How often have you heard people criticize a kid who made an error in a game by saying "That kid has no business being out there!" Now how many say that about their own kid? When we talk about "reaching one's potential" and "peak performance", it implies there is a ceiling to one's performance. You will only get so good before you no longer improve. Anyone who tells you differently must be selling you lessons. Look at all the parents who bought into the "Baby Einstein" theory that teaching a 1 year old to read would give their kids a head start and make them smarter. We don't have a bunch of genius kids walking around, only rich salesmen.

Good Post!
 
Sep 3, 2009
675
0
I meant to say that it "is not the determining factor". Good point about the marriage, kids are only getting 50% of the athletic ability assuming other spouse has none.

I gotta be honest, my dd's ability surprises me. I loved baseball as a kid, but i wasn't any good. My wife has no athletic ability at all. My dd is obsessed and strives to continually improve. Unless my wife has a dark secret, i'm not sure that genetics have anything to do with it.
 
Oct 19, 2009
639
0
I gotta be honest, my dd's ability surprises me. I loved baseball as a kid, but i wasn't any good. My wife has no athletic ability at all. My dd is obsessed and strives to continually improve. Unless my wife has a dark secret, i'm not sure that genetics have anything to do with it.

Funny you say that. I was always a good ball player, but foot speed was never my strong suit. I could hit and had a live arm but I was actually kind of slow of foot. My wife never played softball, was always short and not very athletic.

Now we have this 7 year old dynamo who is small for her age, has ridiculous speed, and is literally ripped (muscle definition). As a toddler she was a tubby little thing but once she hit kindergarten everything changed. Fortunately she has my eyes and lips and my wife's freckles so we're fairly certain there were no mix ups at the hospital.

She has another strike against her though. Late to mid November baby. I won't tell her if you don't though.
 
Jan 15, 2009
585
0
She has another strike against her though. Late to mid November baby. I won't tell her if you don't though.

That may put her in the bottom 20% age wise for travel ball, but on the upside she's probably in the oldest 20% age wise for HS/College ball which may end up being to her advantage.

My dd has an early September birthday and we chose to start her early in school rather than have her be the oldest kid in her class. She's bigger than average 5'7' 150 lbs for her grade level, but if we would have started her when the school wanted her to she would be a giant amoung her classmates. She's in HS now and I have a hard time imagining her being with the kids a grade younger, so I don't regret the decision, just pointing out that late in the year B-day's aren't all bad.
 

sluggers

Super Moderator
Staff member
May 26, 2008
7,132
113
Dallas, Texas
Spud Web was 5'6", had a vertical leap of 42" and could do a 360 slam dunk...but, he wasn't athletically gifted? So, any of us can learn to do a 360 slam? If so, I got to get the name of Spud's coach and Spud's exercise program.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-HoAA7idrqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-HoAA7idrqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is more of an issue of parents to understand what sports are and aren't. You can't make your child into a great player. You can make sure she achieves at her highest level of potential. If your child performs at her peak level in any endeavor, she'll most likely be in the top 5%.
 

FastpitchFan

Softball fan
Feb 28, 2008
465
0
Montreal, Canada
I've done a lot of graduate work in the area of talent development and expertise. I am very familiar with the research.

The simple conclusion as it relates to the role of genetics in sport: "Genetics (nature) does not play as big of a role as most people believe in the development of expert performance and the environment (nurture) plays a greater role than what most people believe".

Further reading:

The Science of Sport: Nature vs nurture
 
Marc,

I am in agreement with the evidence on the nature vs nurture debate. Actually, I am of the opinion that training efficacy difference will be the determinant factor when people present their anecdotal evidence of the rather large importance of nature.

Michel
 
Oct 23, 2009
967
0
Los Angeles
sluggers - I agree that Spud had an amazing vertical leap but slam dunking is such a small part of NBA basketball. There are thousands of high school and college bball players that can slam dunk, but never make it to the next level. Maybe Spud's passing, dribbling, defense, quickness, passion for the game, and shooting skills that he worked on for many, many years might have helped him achieve bball successs? And I totally disagree with your comment "you can't make your child into a great player" other than I would say she makes herself into a great player not the parents.

Marc D - I agree with you, genetics is overrated, sports are too complex to chalk it up to just physical ability that you are born with. I will never put limitations on my kids ability to do whatever they set their mind to achieve.
 
Feb 6, 2009
227
0
The fact we don't put limitations doesn't mean they will succeed. It's great to encourage kids to do anything they want. It seems like many of us are talking about kids that want to play and be around a sport. They somehow have an inclination to play the game in question. I think we all saw kids play sports at 8 to 10 years old that had no athletic ability. Looking back, I have trouble envisioning that the kids that quit when they were that young because they didn't enjoy the game (often times becasue they weren't very good) would become great athletes had they continued. 8 and 10 year olds aren't trained in a sport (well now they are lol) but I think we would all agree some kids looked more athletic and gifted all the way back at that age. My experience has me agreeing with sluggers. I believe that a natural tendency gives some kids an advantage over others. I do believe that no matter how hard some kids try to pitch over 60 PMH, it won't happen and that's genetics (IMO). Then as we know some kids throw it away and others work hard enough given a little less nautural talent to succeed. If you're really lucky you get both. That natural talent and the desire to use it to the best of your ability.
 
Sep 6, 2009
393
0
State of Confusion
Without a doubt some inherited abilities play into the players that may be truly great.

But, there are a lot of professionals that dont fall into that category too. In fact most of their names are forgotten.

And Dr's are more likely to have kids that are Dr's
And lawyers are more likely to have kids that are lawyers
And politicians are more likely to have kids that become politicians
And construction workers are more likely to have kids that are construction workers
And phD's are more likely to have kids that get a phD

My own personal experiences show a pattern that says what mommy and daddy do in general plays a big part in what goals a kid sets for themselves, as well as what the parents push them towards. Its common sense.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top