# Genetics / Natural Talent vs Hard Work / Practice



## Chris Choi (Dec 23, 2015)

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 (Dec 23, 2015)

Chris Choi said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2015)

CuBouz said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2015)

CuBouz said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2015)

Chris Choi said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2015)

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 (Dec 27, 2015)

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 (Dec 27, 2015)

pjk said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2015)

Faz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Ollie (Dec 27, 2015)

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 (Dec 27, 2015)

CriticalCubing said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2015)

Faz said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 28, 2015)

Dene said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 28, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 28, 2015)

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.


----------



## Dene (Dec 29, 2015)

pjk said:


> 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.



I realise he was (hence my final paragraph being about cubing). The running example was just an analogy. It seems people don't seem to buy it though (at least you aren't so blinded to reality). Perhaps I should use another analogy for those who think enough practise will magically make them good at anything. In bodybuilding it's commonly accepted that some people are "hardgainers". These are people who just don't build big sized muscles regardless of their training programme. With enough work they'll get fairly big, but they'll never match the big guys, even if they took steroids. The reason for this largely seems to be their muscle composition (fast-twitch vs slow-twitch muscle fibres). It seems what you're born with is what you get. 

Incidentally these muscle fibres also affect whether you might be better at endurance running or sprinting. Quite simply, if you have a musculature high in slow-twitch fibres you'll never match Arnold Schwarzenegger in size, nor will you be able to match Usain Bolt in a sprint. However you might become a great rock-climber or endurance runner. No matter what you do, you'll never be able to change your muscle composition, so you truly are genetically limited.



pjk said:


> 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?



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.

As a side note, I find this interestingly comparable to my experience in gaming. I love gaming, but despite enormous amounts of practise I was never able to match it with the really good guys. In my time quite a few people told me "you'll get there soon" but I never did. I always wondered what was holding me back, and now I think processing speed has a lot to do with it.

One game in particular I love is Tekken. I have literally spent hundreds of hours specifically practising throw-breaking in Tekken (as well as probably a million hours simply playing the game). Yet still, I really suck at it. My record on that trainer was about 10 or so, which is absolutely horrible. And that's when I can sit and wait and anticipate it coming, which is nothing like in a real game. I love watching videos of Tekken on youtube, and the top players are able to see an attempted throw, and break out of it, mid-game like it's nothing. When I play (estimated in the thousands of hours of practise, quite possibly even the magical 10,000 hour mark (I've been playing since Tekken 3...)) I literally cannot even _see_ the throw, until it's too late. It blows my mind that these top guys can see it and respond in time before I've even realised what happened. But if you consider processing speed (which I seem to lack) it makes sense.

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 last thing I want to mention for now is this distinction between "world class" and "elite" or whatever. I mean, really it's just semantics so there's no point getting caught up in it, but as far as I'm concerned, to be "world class" you should be someone that is realistically fighting for first place (which means giving Feliks a run for his money (in the relevant events)). So when I say it's out of range for most people, I specifically mean most people won't be able to foot it with Feliks' times.



Isaac Lai said:


> 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.



This is just ridiculous, and surely you aren't so ignorant of real-world experience to not see why what you're saying doesn't make any sense at all. Let me use myself as an example. According to my parents I was walking at 9 months old, and running at 11 months (a baby generally starts walking at around a year, so I was very early). My whole life I've been fit and active, always playing sports and running around. I was brought up playing football, cricket, and rugby league. I was always a competent sprinter and mid-distance runner (never tried marathons or anything like that so no data available). In primary school I was the fastest in sprints and long-distance running. At that time I was largely up against fellow white people. This experience didn't change too much at high school, where I was basically the fastest white person. However there was one big difference: I went to a school with a lot of islanders, and in general those guys smoked me. 

But there's a much more obvious example. Just look at the Olympics, which is full of people who have been sprinting their whole lives, with specialised training since they could walk. Yet none of them can match Usain Bolt (even convicted drug cheats). How can you possibly explain that, without turning to genetics? Incidentally, all the top sprinters tend to be of African descent. Just a big old coincidence, right? Yeah, right >_>



Isaac Lai said:


> 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.



See my above post.



Isaac Lai said:


> 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.



Apart from the fact that there is no actual evidence for the so called "10,000 hours" theory, you completely miss the point. Why is it that some people just do well in some things, but suck at others? For example, I am a natural at maths and the hard sciences. I didn't practise more than anyone else, yet I was amongst the top in my classes. I preferred to be outside kicking a ball around rather than in a classroom doing equations, yet I performed in the top percentile amongst New Zealanders and Australians in the Australian Maths Competition when I was in primary school, without any specific training.

On the flipside, I really suck at other things, despite a lot of effort (see my post above). How can you possibly claim that genetics has nothing to do with it? It might be hard to swallow that your accomplishments are heavily influenced by what you are born with, but to deny it is to deny reality.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 29, 2015)

Dene said:


> ...



Perhaps you didn't read my above post: allow me to summarise: Cubing does not have enough people doing it for long enough to have such a strong bias towards certian people such that it is impossible for them to become "world class". (world records? Maybe).

In additions, it is still a relatively new sport so it is likely the best records have not been set yet (so it is possible that the records could drop by much more than ever thought possible)


----------



## Xtremecubing (Dec 29, 2015)

Feliks might have a slight genetic advantage over other people, and combine that with the amount of work that he has put in and you get the top solver in the world. Some things like singing, sports, are totally genetic. I cannot just become a bass and be able to sing really low no matter how much I practice, only specific people with those genetics can do that, and to beat Usain Bolt, you would have to be a specific height, weight, have a specific number of fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch etc. I don't think cubing is this reliant on genetics, but it could be in the future, when people get faster eventually.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Perhaps you didn't read my above post: allow me to summarise: Cubing does not have enough people doing it for long enough to have such a strong bias towards certian people such that it is impossible for them to become "world class". (world records? Maybe).
> 
> In additions, it is still a relatively new sport so it is likely the best records have not been set yet (so it is possible that the records could drop by much more than ever thought possible)



I saw it, but really it's your speculation vs. my speculation, so not much to say. Obviously we know times can get better because they continue to. But the current evidence suggests not everyone is capable of getting to be competitive for current world records.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Dec 30, 2015)

(In a short answer, this is my opinion)

Being a world class speedcuber requires part natural skill and part practice. You CAN be a world champion with no 'natural skill', just practice, but it is much harder, and you will need to practice way more often, and also for a longer time. As people have said that Feliks has a 'natural ability with cubing,' he practices a lot, but not as much as other people that don't have 'natural skill'


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 30, 2015)

I've always thought it an interesting and mostly unique aspect of cubing that the fastest solvers in the world have the ability to practice more than anyone else. I average ~13.6 and Faz averages, dunno, ~7.2. So in the same hour, he can literally do (13.6-7.1)/7.1 = 91.5% *more* practice than I can in the same amount of time. Again, if we both sat down for an hour, he would do twice the number of solves as me, and so twice as much practice. I am not practicing as much as him (so I think) until I am doing the same number of solves as him.


----------



## josh42732 (Dec 30, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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.



So you're saying that Maskow, because of his genetics, can BLD solve better than anyone and that nobody will ever come close merely because of genetics? I'd say that genetics do play a role, but not in ability. I'd say that it's in your genetics on how much you practice, how good your work ethic is, and staying focused on the task at hand.



FastCubeMaster said:


> (In a short answer, this is my opinion)
> 
> Being a world class speedcuber requires part natural skill and part practice. You CAN be a world champion with no 'natural skill', just practice, but it is much harder, and you will need to practice way more often, and also for a longer time. As people have said that Feliks has a 'natural ability with cubing,' he practices a lot, but not as much as other people that don't have 'natural skill'



Agreed.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> I've always thought it an interesting and mostly unique aspect of cubing that the fastest solvers in the world have the ability to practice more than anyone else. I average ~13.6 and Faz averages, dunno, ~7.2. So in the same hour, he can literally do (13.6-7.1)/7.1 = 91.5% *more* practice than I can in the same amount of time. Again, if we both sat down for an hour, he would do twice the number of solves as me, and so twice as much practice. I am not practicing as much as him (so I think) until I am doing the same number of solves as him.



This logic is so messed up for so many reasons. But if you want to stick with it, then do 2x2, and you'll get in more solves in an hour 



josh42732 said:


> So you're saying that Maskow, because of his genetics, can BLD solve better than anyone and that nobody will ever come close merely because of genetics? I'd say that genetics do play a role, but not in ability. I'd say that it's in your genetics on how much you practice, how good your work ethic is, and staying focused on the task at hand..



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.

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.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

I have to agree with Dene here...

Of course practise is important and needed to be world class in any event.

BUT at the very top level people all practise really hard so the differences come from natural talent (and smart deliberate practising) rather than the sheer amount of time put in to practising.

100m sprint or any other big sport is a good example. They all do it for their living and practise professionally and as much as humanly possible but still some of them are just better than others. That's genetics/talent...


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 30, 2015)

I would say 60% hard work, 40% natural talent


----------



## stoic (Dec 30, 2015)

Interesting topic. Allow me to repost something I put in Escher's practice thread a couple of days ago (hadn't seen this one):



stoic said:


> Just finished reading a book I got for Xmas, and I think it has a lot of relevance here: "Bounce" by Matthew Syed.
> The author is a former table tennis champion, and sets out to discuss "The myth of talent and the power of practice".
> Particularly noteworthy is the story of Laszlo Polgar, who attempted to dispel the notion that talent is innate using his own children. In his own words: "People tell me the success of my daughters was pure luck...they say it was a coincidence that a man who set about proving the practice theory of excellence using chess just happened to beget the three most talented female chess players in history. Maybe some people just do not want to believe in the power of practice."
> And another quote - among many - that caught my eye: "Purposeful practice may not be easy, but it is breathtakingly effective."
> Like I say, a great read and recommended.



Don't want to get into responding to much of the above (the book nails it better than I ever could for those really interested), but Syed is careful to be aware of the distinction between complex and simple tasks. The latter in his definition would include running, which he discusses in detail.



Sajwo said:


> I would say 60% hard work, 40% natural talent



I would say <1% natural talent, >99% hard work, practice and other accidents of opportunity.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 30, 2015)

stoic said:


> I would say <1% natural talent, >99% hard work, practice and other accidents of opportunity.



I am cubing since 2009. It all depends on your point of view. I know dozens of people who are practising daily for many years and they couldn't accomplish what young and fresh minds done in 1 or 2 years since they started cubing. It's easy to say that it all depend on practice, if you are one of the bests.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 30, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I have to agree with Dene here...
> 
> Of course practise is important and needed to be world class in any event.
> 
> ...



I agree that it may take talent to get to the world record standards however, in general, not enough people really cube competitively to prevent anyone from really attaining world standard (note: not world record standard- I would agree that the world record holder definately have something or several things on their side).

It may soon become true for common events such as 3x3 however, if cubing continues to grow and almost every viable method comes into use or is created.


----------



## stoic (Dec 30, 2015)

Sajwo said:


> I am cubing since 2009. *It all depends on your point of view. *I know dozens of people who are practising daily for many years and they couldn't accomplish what young and fresh minds done in 1 or 2 years since they started cubing. It's easy to say that it all depend on practice, if you are one of the bests.


I don't have all the answers, and it's fun speculating but as a scientist there's one thing I can say with certainty: at least one of us is definitely wrong.


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

There's no denying that some people have more talent than others and will have an easier time improving. The difference might be very small, but it definitely exists.
This doesn't mean in any way that people with less talent can't become fast with hard work or that people with more talent don't have to work hard to become fast.

Also this:


onionhoney said:


> 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.


----------



## Yetiowin (Dec 30, 2015)

I think that thinking you need to have natural talent to be good is like how non-cubers think that you need to have natural talent to solve the cube. All cubers know that if you spend enough time, it's pretty easy. Though you may improve slightly faster if you have some natural advantage, natural talent will not affect your ability to become world class.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I agree that it may take talent to get to the world record standards however, in general, not enough people really cube competitively to prevent anyone from really attaining world standard (note: not world record standard- I would agree that the world record holder definately have something or several things on their side).
> 
> It may soon become true for common events such as 3x3 however, if cubing continues to grow and almost every viable method comes into use or is created.



Well then it becomes more of a question of "What is world class?"

Top100?
Top10?
Top 1%?
Top 0.1%?
Something else?


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Well then it becomes more of a question of "What is world class?"
> 
> Top100?
> Top10?
> ...



If people say you are.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 30, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Well then it becomes more of a question of "What is world class?"
> 
> Top100?
> Top10?
> ...



If people say you are but I would go top 10-100 depending on event.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there was already a thread debating this. Give me a sec and I'll find it


----------



## stoic (Dec 30, 2015)

onionhoney said:


> 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.



Isn't there a logical fallacy being committed here...arguing in favour of talent by positing a hypothetical "talented friend" (who may well have spent many hours in unseen practice)?


PS. Repped for the Socratic signature.


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

I think what it's trying to say is that if you see that you're good at something, you'll be motivated to do more, which I believe is true.


----------



## stoic (Dec 30, 2015)

turtwig said:


> I think what it's trying to say is that if you see that you're good at something, you'll be motivated to do more, which I believe is true.


Agreed. 
I also believe that. 
Although, I believe that if you see that you're bad at something you'll be motivated to do more, so...:confused:


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

stoic said:


> Agreed.
> I also believe that.
> Although, I believe that if you see that you're bad at something you'll be motivated to do more, so...:confused:



But if you're bad, you might just go do something else.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

turtwig said:


> If people say you are.



What people?

Someone who hasn't ever solved a cube?
Someone who averages ~50s?
Someone who is sub-10?
Me?
You?

Everyone of those people will (probably) have a different view on what really is considered world class.
But that really isn't a topic of this thread so I'll try to stop derailing it now...


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Dec 30, 2015)

I think that if there is any "natural" advantage, its very small. Also any "natural" advantage may not be natural. Anyone who is, lets say, an avid Gamer likely has faster cognitive and more dexterity than someone who is not, and in turn if they started they would have a small advantage over others. you may think that he/she has "naturally" faster reflexes when in reality he/she gained them. I also think that the age at which you start could also have an Impact. obviously when you're 40+ years old you start to lose cognitive abilities and dexterity. When your young, your mind is more flexible and it's easier to learn things. also as many people have said, the way you practice and the amount also affects whether you can be sub 20 in a year or wether your sub 10 in a year. There are a lot of variables that could determine how fast you'll Improve.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Dec 30, 2015)

1% inspiration 99% perspiration 

the US memory champion, as an example, 5-6 years ago had a terrible memory, he couldn't even find his keys, today he can memorize and entire deck of cards in ~ 30 sec. 

different methods work for different people, some are kinesthetic learners some auditory some visual. some people have photographic memory. 

But people, the day i believe that i can't ever get as good as others is the day that i stop cubing. 

@dene running is totally different, usain bolt is like 6'6", his legs are longer than most people. 

@whoever said no one has been cubing for 10+ years, chris hardwick has been


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Dec 30, 2015)

turtwig said:


> and some people have longer fingers



use a smaller cube. or a bigger one if your hands are too big for the cube that was designed for people with avg size hands. 

cubes are scaleable, the mile tho is the same distance for someone who is 5'5" and for someone who is 6'6"


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

turtwig said:


> If a lot of people agree that you are, than you are. Being "world class" doesn't really matter anyway.



Well I know a lot of people (who have never solved the cube) who would agree that anyone sub-30 is definitely world class.

Also it kind of matters if we are arguing about "Can anyone be world class cuber if they just practise enough?"


----------



## Rubiks560 (Dec 30, 2015)

Seriously, genetics play such a small role in this. 

I believe genetics matter for becoming the ABSOLUTE best, but I think it makes up *maybe* 1% of that person. 
The majority of it comes down to how you practice. Also, Dene's argument about reaction times is ridiculous. Saying "my reaction time is 260ms so I can't get faster" you can train reaction time. You *might* have a limit to what your reaction time can be, but I bet it isn't 260 for your hard cap. And for all you know, Feliks' reaction time is slower than yours. A lot of it is prediction based anyway. Predict cross+1 during inspection, and now you have 12+ moves that you don't need to look at the cube. During those 12+ moves you can track other F2L pairs. I'm sure reaction speed does play a part in cubing, but certainly not a large role.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Seriously, genetics play such a small role in this.
> 
> I believe genetics matter for becoming the ABSOLUTE best, but I think it makes up *maybe* 1% of that person.



I agree but then we are talking about world class here. So genetics/talent starts to matter...

I can almost guarantee you that I could practise 8 hours a day for the next 20 years and wouldn't be world class. I would be considerably faster than I am now of course but I really much doubt I would be for example sub-8. 

I believe that anyone can get to around 10s if they REALLY want to put in the effort needed. Some get there easily in their first year or two but for others it takes more effort and time than they probably are willing to sacrifice. But for something like global 8s average I think you need some talent/genetics/whatever you want to call it to be able to recognize and execute the correct algs at that speed...


----------



## GuRoux (Dec 30, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I agree but then we are talking about world class here. So genetics/talent starts to matter...
> 
> I can almost guarantee you that I could practise 8 hours a day for the next 20 years and wouldn't be world class. I would be considerably faster than I am now of course but I really much doubt I would be for example sub-8.
> 
> I believe that anyone can get to around 10s if they REALLY want to put in the effort needed. Some get there easily in their first year or two but for others it takes more effort and time than they probably are willing to sacrifice. But for something like global 8s average I think you need some talent/genetics/whatever you want to call it to be able to recognize and execute the correct algs at that speed...



i think you are totally underestimating yourself. 8 hours a day for 20 years is so much time. you could master zbll even, have perfect lookahead, and i would assume super tps.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 30, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i think you are totally underestimating yourself. 8 hours a day for 20 years is so much time. you could master zbll even, have perfect lookahead, and i would assume super tps.



CFOP averages ~60 moves so sub-8 means ~7.5tps. There are only a few LL algs where I can reach that TPS not to mention during F2L or cross... Now obviously that would improve with practise. But I really doubt that I could be able to execute (most) PLLs in under 1s (the speed that world clas cubers currently do it). I could be wrong of course since I haven't practised for 20 years 8 hours a day but I doubt that...


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

That's almost 60,000 hours. You seriously don't think that you can get sub-8 with 60,000 hours of practice? If you were to do 8 hours a day you could easily plan out your day with slow solving time, alg learning time, and timed solves to maximize improvement rates. Even if you just did timed solves I think you could achieved sub-8 in less than 5 years.


----------



## adimare (Dec 30, 2015)

ITT: realists vs people who think Feliks is faster than them only because he's cubed for a few more hours...


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 30, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> CFOP averages ~60 moves so sub-8 means ~7.5tps. There are only a few LL algs where I can reach that TPS not to mention during F2L or cross... Now obviously that would improve with practise. But I really doubt that I could be able to execute (most) PLLs in under 1s (the speed that world clas cubers currently do it). I could be wrong of course since I haven't practised for 20 years 8 hours a day but I doubt that...



CFOP is ~55 moves on average, that is quite a difference. I see your point, I don't think either that I am capable of sub8. But if I could start fresh and forget everything that I learned for all these years in cubing, I think sub8 wouldn't be a problem in a few years. I have many bad habits that are almost impossible to fix at this moment


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

Reality: Some people are born smarter than others, some are born stronger than others, and some are born better at cubing.
You can say all you want that practice enough and you'll become as good as Feliks, but do you think that anyone could just work hard and be as smart as Einstein? Or faster than Usain Bolt?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 30, 2015)

turtwig said:


> Reality: Some people are born smarter than others, some are born stronger than others, and some are born better at cubing.
> You can say all you want that practice enough and you'll become as good as Feliks, but do you think that anyone could just work hard and be as smart as Einstein? Or faster than Usain Bolt?



No. Those are the absolute best. Surpassing perhaps even world class cause they're so much better than everyone else and so clearly have some genetic advantage required to reach that level.

However, world class is a slightly different matter for cubing as it is a far more select group than (for example) running or swimming.


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 30, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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.



Dene, I agree with you. There are scientific studies to show that Usain Bolt has a genetic advantage over other sprinters. He is 6' 5" inches and usually at that height you don't have enough 'fast twitch' fibers or the strength to take strides long enough to take advantage of that height. He is one of the very few that is in the sport that works for his unique genetics. Feliks doesn't have a genetic advantage like that, he doesn't have fingers that bend backwards or can do something odd with the cube......But, on seeing a lot of his reconstructions I noticed a lot of multislotting so asked him does he practice multislotting and he said no(It's posted on the 'forum') which means while a lot of people are working on the best 'Lookahead' they can, Feliks at times is multislotting without studying it. From all of the records and the smoothness of his solves it's obvious that he is seeing something most are not and his practices help advance whatever little gift he has. It remains to be seen if future cubers can catch up, people have broken records but the sheer number of records and consistency says there's something special about what he is doing. Also people talk about practicing but no one talks about proper practicing. I study music and my teacher said I practice scales too much and don't work on making music. Feliks has vids on just crosses, crosses to f2L, f2L to Last layer, and numerous separate things to make him faster. Just doing solves for many hours a day won't get you there, it has to be specific so you know where you have to work on to get faster.


----------



## turtwig (Dec 30, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> No. Those are the absolute best. Surpassing perhaps even world class cause they're so much better than everyone else and so clearly have some genetic advantage required to reach that level.
> 
> However, world class is a slightly different matter for cubing as it is a far more select group than (for example) running or swimming.



I agree, but my point is that some people are born with natural talent which some people apparently think is not true.


----------



## henrysavich (Dec 30, 2015)

I honestly think you guys are putting Feliks on a pedestal. World class in cubing is so much farther from human limits than world class in running or swimming. Feliks has been cubing for about 6 years, that's no time at all compared to how long Olympic athletes have been training. I doubt sub-8 is out of reach for the average person, much less the average cuber, if you give yourself 15 years, practicing 10 hours a week.

Of course Feliks is naturally talented, but he's no god. He's gotten to where he is through practice, good practice, more than talent. World class is not yet exclusive based on natural ability.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2015)

adimare said:


> ITT: realists vs people who think Feliks is faster than them only because he's cubed for a few more hours...



pfft reality is for chumps. my mummy told me i can do anything i want to


----------



## JanW (Dec 30, 2015)

The article doesn't seem to be online anymore, but there was an interesting article about study comparing kids who had been praised for their talent to those who had been praised for hard work. In short, the study found that those who were praised for being talented were more likely to give up when they faced a hard task. They simply believed their innate talent wasn't enough to conquer the task at hand. Those who had been praised for working hard would not give up, but instead believed they can overcome the obstacle if they work hard enough, then they went on to do so. So if you want to raise successful children, erase the word "talented" from your vocabulary. Probably wise to stop thinking in terms of talent about whatever you do yourself also, it is of no help to think there is a limit to what you can do. I'm fairly confident that nobody in this thread is at the limit of what they could achieve in cubing with enough practice, so no need to worry about talent.

In the case of Feliks, he has achieved more than anyone else, so clearly there is something special about him and what he does. I'm guessing this mostly means that he has been able to not only practice, but practice very well for many many hours. You can argue that this is some kind of innate ability, I don't know if it is, but I do know that most people are not able to practice anything efficiently for several hours a day over a long period of time. Anyone can practice something for 10000 hours, but very few can do focused deliberate practice for 10000 hours. 

People often claim that practice makes perfect. This is false. Practice makes permanent, only perfect practice makes perfect. If you do 1000 solves without thought, repeating the same mistakes over and over again, all you achieve is that you teach your brain to do those mistakes. In the end this puts you further away from your goal, as erasing the mistakes will be harder the more used you are to doing them.

Feliks probably has an ability to analyze what he is doing wrong and fixing his mistakes very fast. In addition he has had a very strong motivation and desire to improve. Whatever his special abilities are, they are not cubing related as such. If he had instead became interested in something else and put the same effort into learning some other skill, he would most likely be very proficient in that skill by now instead.


----------



## stoic (Dec 31, 2015)

^
Is this the article you mean?


----------



## GuRoux (Dec 31, 2015)

JanW said:


> The article doesn't seem to be online anymore, but there was an interesting article about study comparing kids who had been praised for their talent to those who had been praised for hard work. In short, the study found that those who were praised for being talented were more likely to give up when they faced a hard task. They simply believed their innate talent wasn't enough to conquer the task at hand. Those who had been praised for working hard would not give up, but instead believed they can overcome the obstacle if they work hard enough, then they went on to do so. So if you want to raise successful children, erase the word "talented" from your vocabulary. Probably wise to stop thinking in terms of talent about whatever you do yourself also, it is of no help to think there is a limit to what you can do. I'm fairly confident that nobody in this thread is at the limit of what they could achieve in cubing with enough practice, so no need to worry about talent.
> 
> In the case of Feliks, he has achieved more than anyone else, so clearly there is something special about him and what he does. I'm guessing this mostly means that he has been able to not only practice, but practice very well for many many hours. You can argue that this is some kind of innate ability, I don't know if it is, but I do know that most people are not able to practice anything efficiently for several hours a day over a long period of time. Anyone can practice something for 10000 hours, but very few can do focused deliberate practice for 10000 hours.
> 
> ...



this is what i agree with. the reality is that hard work is the biggest driving force for improvement vs people hoping it's mostly talent. hard working mindset is the true talent.


----------



## JanW (Dec 31, 2015)

stoic said:


> ^
> Is this the article you mean?



I think this is the article. But it appears you have to pay for it nowadays, used to be free to read.


----------



## stoic (Dec 31, 2015)

JanW said:


> I think this is the article. But it appears you have to pay for it nowadays, used to be free to read.


Ah, ok. Possibly a continuation of the same work (Carol Dweck is an author on both)?

Edit: this might be it?


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2015)

There is a lot of psychological research on this sort of topic, and the results aren't surprising. But it's statements like this...



JanW said:


> So if you want to raise successful children, erase the word "talented" from your vocabulary. Probably wise to stop thinking in terms of talent about whatever you do yourself also, it is of no help to think there is a limit to what you can do.



... that lead to a bunch of naive kids on the internet thinking anyone can do anything, when they can't. Instead, how about teaching kids that to be successful in life they don't have to win at everything they do, but be good people.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Dec 31, 2015)

Dene said:


> There is a lot of psychological research on this sort of topic, and the results aren't surprising. But it's statements like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ... that lead to a bunch of naive kids on the internet thinking anyone can do anything, when they can't. Instead, how about teaching kids that to be successful in life they don't have to win at everything they do, but be good people.



You can't prove that they can't do it...trying to tell them that "oh you can't do x" puts a limit on their mind. Very foolish IMO. 
Sure, they might not be able to. But you don't know that.


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> You can't prove that they can't do it...trying to tell them that "oh you can't do x" puts a limit on their mind. Very foolish IMO.
> Sure, they might not be able to. But you don't know that.



Ya because it's so good for kids to be told their whole lives they can do anything. Then when they try, and fail, it's humiliating and demoralising, and leads them to put blame on either everyone else (making them spiteful and angry) or worse, themselves (leading to depression and suicide). But if that all sounds great to you then good luck raising your kids.

Also I never said, nor implied, that you should say "you can't do it" to kids. To assume that's what I was implying is a complete misunderstanding what I've said throughout this discussion.


----------



## JanW (Dec 31, 2015)

Dene said:


> Ya because it's so good for kids to be told their whole lives they can do anything. Then when they try, and fail, it's humiliating and demoralising, and leads them to put blame on either everyone else (making them spiteful and angry) or worse, themselves (leading to depression and suicide). But if that all sounds great to you then good luck raising your kids.


I think you completely misunderstood the point. I never said anything about saying "you can do anything". Nobody can do anything, of course there is some limit to what you can achieve in a lifetime. But I believe no human has ever been able to reach this limit in any activity. If you look at exceptional performers, they are not thinking that they are as good as they ever will get and quit trying. Usain Bolt might have some genetic advantage, but he is still working as hard as he can, because he believes very strongly that he can still improve.

The point is that you can achieve more if you work harder. And to teach your kids this, you should say "you did very well" instead of "you are so good". Teach them that they performed well because they tried hard and did something right, not because they just have some inborn ability.

Also, trying and failing is not humiliating and should not be demoralizing. It's a part of any learning process.


----------



## OLLiver (Dec 31, 2015)

JanW said:


> I think you completely misunderstood the point. I never said anything about saying "you can do anything". Nobody can do anything, of course there is some limit to what you can achieve in a lifetime. But I believe no human has ever been able to reach this limit in any activity. If you look at exceptional performers, they are not thinking that they are as good as they ever will get and quit trying. Usain Bolt might have some genetic advantage, but he is still working as hard as he can, because he believes very strongly that he can still improve.
> 
> The point is that you can achieve more if you work harder. And to teach your kids this, you should say "you did very well" instead of "you are so good". Teach them that they performed well because they tried hard and did something right, not because they just have some inborn ability.
> 
> Also, trying and failing is not humiliating and should not be demoralizing. It's a part of any learning process.



Ok. I'll bite.
I agree with Dene.
Some people just have some natural ability. We are not all alike. Genetically we must be distinct. Basic Biology. Diversity is how we evolve. with diversity we would be dead by now.
This genetic diversity is expressed in some people having natural talent.
Usain bolt is an excellent example. Sure he is tall. but biologically I bet he has some small biological dvantage over others that translates to him having slightly higher speeds/endurance/etc. no matter how hard I train. He will always be faster than me because I don't have the same genetic advantage.


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2015)

JanW said:


> I think you completely misunderstood the point.



I think you're the one that's confused. I wasn't quoting you when I said that. When I did quote you previously, it was about the consequences of your thought process, not a reiteration of your statement.



JanW said:


> The point is that you can achieve more if you work harder. And to teach your kids this, you should say "you did very well" instead of "you are so good". Teach them that they performed well because they tried hard and did something right, not because they just have some inborn ability.



Of course, that is a great life lesson. But with the way people have been talking in this thread, it doesn't seem as if that's what they had in mind.



JanW said:


> Also, trying and failing is not humiliating and should not be demoralizing. It's a part of any learning process.



Within the right context, of course. But if someone has been told their whole life they can do anything, and nothing can hold them back, it would be very demoralising to fail at anything.


----------



## JanW (Dec 31, 2015)

Dene said:


> Within the right context, of course. But if someone has been told their whole life they can do anything, and nothing can hold them back, it would be very demoralising to fail at anything.


Everything in moderation, of course. "You can do anything"-talk is no good, I totally agree on that. But to me, using that phrase sounds more like trying to tell someone they have a special gift that can take them further than anyone else. Apparently you look at it differently and read it into the other side of the argument.

It also depends on your definition of "do anything". If you read that as becoming the best in the world, it is most likely not true. There's 7 billion of us, there will always be a lot of people that are better than you at whatever you do, except in the case for very few individuals. If your aim is to become the very best and you view it as a failure if you don't, then it is very likely you will be disappointed. If that is the mindset, then our planet is populated almost exclusively by failed individuals. But in reality, to become successful in life you do not need to be the best in the world, not even the best in your town or the best in your class. Most fields have millions of successful practitioners in the world. It's enough to become one of them. With motivation, dedication and hard work, and a realistic view of what success means, you can get there. Provided, of course, that you can afford the education, if you live in a country where this is an issue.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Dec 31, 2015)

Dene said:


> Ya because it's so good for kids to be told their whole lives they can do anything. *Then when they try, and fail, it's humiliating and demoralising, and leads them to put blame on either everyone else (making them spiteful and angry) or worse, themselves (leading to depression and suicide).* But if that all sounds great to you then good luck raising your kids.
> 
> Also I never said, nor implied, that you should say "you can't do it" to kids. To assume that's what I was implying is a complete misunderstanding what I've said throughout this discussion.



This is probably the most extreme example you could have given. Failing or not succeeding is just a part of life. You can't win everything. And if you raise a kid to just accept failure and teach him to blame it on everyone else, you really did something wrong when raising that kid. I mean, I guess when I failed to get WR tons of times in 2011 I should have just gave up and killed myself and blamed other people. Because according to you, that's what people do.

You don't have to tell a kid "you'll be the best at anything you want!" but you should be letting them explore what they enjoy which for all you know, they have a natural ability for. And that natural ability will never be capitalized on if they don't practice it.


----------



## kake123 (Dec 31, 2015)

Dene said:


> 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.



Since I believe this thread is about cubing, I would have to say 3 things: passion, practice, and good practice.

None of the people related to me are able to solve a 3x3. And people who see me solve a cube relatively fast think that maybe my parents or family members also can solve the cube (maybe as fast) because "it is in the genes" (common lame fallacy).

So for speedcubing, genetics really dosen't play a part.


----------



## Walrusizer (Dec 31, 2015)

both matter case closed


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2016)

Rubiks560 said:


> This is probably the most extreme example you could have given. Failing or not succeeding is just a part of life. You can't win everything. And if you raise a kid to just accept failure and teach him to blame it on everyone else, you really did something wrong when raising that kid. I mean, I guess when I failed to get WR tons of times in 2011 I should have just gave up and killed myself and blamed other people. Because according to you, that's what people do.



There are a lot of factors that will determine how someone responds to any given treatment, so of course there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. My example was extreme, but surely one suicide is one too many. This is why you should take care in how you define success. And of course, never tell people they can definitely "do anything" because it's bull crap. Instead you could say "with a lot of hard work you can excel at most things", or whatever.



Rubiks560 said:


> You don't have to tell a kid "you'll be the best at anything you want!" but you should be letting them explore what they enjoy which for all you know, they have a natural ability for. And that natural ability will never be capitalized on if they don't practice it.





JanW said:


> It also depends on your definition of "do anything". If you read that as becoming the best in the world, it is most likely not true. There's 7 billion of us, there will always be a lot of people that are better than you at whatever you do, except in the case for very few individuals. If your aim is to become the very best and you view it as a failure if you don't, then it is very likely you will be disappointed. If that is the mindset, then our planet is populated almost exclusively by failed individuals. But in reality, to become successful in life you do not need to be the best in the world, not even the best in your town or the best in your class. Most fields have millions of successful practitioners in the world. It's enough to become one of them. With motivation, dedication and hard work, and a realistic view of what success means, you can get there. Provided, of course, that you can afford the education, if you live in a country where this is an issue.



Good to see you guys have come around to much more reasonable perspectives now. I take it that since we're having this debate, you agree that genetics do indeed play a role. Apparently I've made progress in this thread.


----------



## CubeFrance (Jan 1, 2016)

The only thing we can notice is people that hold WR/World Classe Performance like Chris Olson know that these performances are due to training more than natural talent.
In it's thread it's clear that cubers who are thinkings Feliks got amazing results by is "natural talent" are cowards.
Seriously, a lot of people have already said that speedcubing is a young sport. The actual level is slow compare to the limiit of speedcubing. Everybody can reach sub7/8 average of 5 with 2hours cubing per day during 10years for ewample.
In this thread people talk about Usain Bolt. But No one have cube more than Usain Bolt Train during his life. Usain Bolt his a really hard worker even if he got a little genetics advantages. I'm sure if a guy cube with the rigor of Usain bolt's training for years, he will beat Felik's.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 1, 2016)

CubeFrance said:


> Everybody can reach sub7/8 average of 5 with 2hours cubing per day during 10years for ewample.



false.

Everyone has their own individual limit, however it is not set in stone, but can be expanded/decompressed based on oneself.


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2016)

CubeFrance said:


> In it's thread it's clear that cubers who are thinkings Feliks got amazing results by is "natural talent" are cowards.



Why practise when his natural talent can get him sub7?


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!! *runs away and hides behind a curtain*


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jan 1, 2016)

Dene said:


> There are a lot of factors that will determine how someone responds to any given treatment, so of course there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. My example was extreme, but surely one suicide is one too many. This is why you should take care in how you define success. And of course, never tell people they can definitely "do anything" because it's bull crap. Instead you could say "with a lot of hard work you can excel at most things", or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said in my first post that I agree genetics play a role in this. But you're completely downplaying how significant of a role practice plays in this. That natural talent does literally nothing without that practice. Saying "oh you kids are just mad because bad and can't catch Feliks" is so ridiculous. I very much believe that if I had lots of time to completely devote to cubing I could one day be as fast as Feliks with lots of practice.

Genetics play a role. But no where near as significant as the practice.


----------



## OLLiver (Jan 1, 2016)

Rubiks560 said:


> I said in my first post that I agree genetics play a role in this. But you're completely downplaying how significant of a role practice plays in this. That natural talent does literally nothing without that practice. Saying "oh you kids are just mad because bad and can't catch Feliks" is so ridiculous. I very much believe that if I had lots of time to completely devote to cubing I could one day be as fast as Feliks with lots of practice.
> 
> Genetics play a role. But no where near as significant as the practice.


yes practice is 99% of it I daresay.

also happy new year to minnesota. I love minnesota. your weather looks amazing


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 1, 2016)

the only effect genetics can have on speedcubing is work ethic and determination. other than that, I agree with some previous posts that cubing hasnt been aroung long enough for genetics to matter much. (although this will change when the current generation of speedcubers start having kids and teaching their 3 year olds 1LLL).


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> the only effect genetics can have on speedcubing is work ethic and determination. other than that, I agree with some previous posts that cubing hasnt been aroung long enough for genetics to matter much.


Yeah this is pretty much my point of view but having said that having naturally faster twitch fingers cab help a bit though that can be trained



> (although this will change when the current generation of speedcubers start having kids and teaching their 3 year olds 1LLL).



Lol 1LLL is for the weak. I'm teaching mine F3L. 

But it would be interesting to see what the children of cubers would be like (cause I believe that this generation us still essentially the first with a wider amount of competitive cubers that use relatively developed methods such that there are essentially no easily discovered methods anymore). It would be interesting to see if good cubers have children who are good cubers (though this will not necessarily end the debate cause there's still the nature vs nurture).


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 1, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah this is pretty much my point of view but having said that having naturally faster twitch fingers cab help a bit though that can be trained
> 
> 
> 
> ...



probably both nature and nurture. since cubing is a fun hobby for us as kids, we will probably introduce it to our kids. also, some part their dna might include better coordination (speficially fingers), better pattern recognition, better problem solving skills, and better memory. of course, these can all be acquired in other ways but they wont be cubing specific. 

inb4 redkb's son gets sub 3 single at age sub 3


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 1, 2016)

CubeFrance said:


> The only thing we can notice is people that hold WR/World Classe Performance like Chris Olson know that these performances are due to training more than natural talent.


And how do they know that?


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2016)

Rubiks560 said:


> I said in my first post that I agree genetics play a role in this. But you're completely downplaying how significant of a role practice plays in this. That natural talent does literally nothing without that practice. Saying "oh you kids are just mad because bad and can't catch Feliks" is so ridiculous. I very much believe that if I had lots of time to completely devote to cubing I could one day be as fast as Feliks with lots of practice.
> 
> Genetics play a role. But no where near as significant as the practice.



Na.



PenguinsDontFly said:


> the only effect genetics can have on speedcubing is work ethic and determination.



The funny thing is, those are things that aren't particularly influenced by genetics. Then you go and make me lmao by saying things like 



PenguinsDontFly said:


> probably both nature and nurture


----------



## JanW (Jan 1, 2016)

Dene said:


> Good to see you guys have come around to much more reasonable perspectives now. I take it that since we're having this debate, you agree that genetics do indeed play a role. Apparently I've made progress in this thread.


Genetics probably have some role, because we are different, with different genes. But when it comes to an activity like cubing, the role of genetics would be close to non existent compared to the effect of practice. Small enough that you can ignore it when considering what makes someone into a great cuber. And most of the things that people view as innate talent are actually not that at all, it's skills picked up at a very young age. These play a far greater role than genetics. 

I don't think we will see anyone born with a special ability for cubing until an autistic savant comes along with cube visualization and/or alg learning skills that are far beyond reach for other cubers.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2016)

Dene said:


> Good to see you guys have come around to much more reasonable perspectives now. I take it that since we're having this debate, you agree that genetics do indeed play a role. Apparently I've made progress in this thread.



Well, actually, no. Bar maybe 2 or 3 people everyone agreed from the start that genetics/natural talent plays an important role.

That only real argument is everyone trying to show you that you are really downplaying/ignoring the fact that practise/breaks or lack thereof definitely also play a role almost as significant, if not just as or perhaps even more significant than whatever natural talent an individual possesses.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 1, 2016)

Dene said:


> Na.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, those are things that aren't particularly influenced by genetics. Then you go and make me lmao by saying things like



alright you know what im gonna say something you would probably say

you're only arguing that genetics plays a role because you're mad that you're not world class.


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 1, 2016)

JanW said:


> And most of the things that people view as innate talent are actually not that at all, it's skills picked up at a very young age. These play a far greater role than genetics.


That can still be viewed as natural ability given that no reasonable amount of practice will compensate later if you did not develop those skills early enough.



JanW said:


> I don't think we will see anyone born with a special ability for cubing until an autistic savant comes along with cube visualization and/or alg learning skills that are far beyond reach for other cubers.


How do you know that hasn't happened already? Barring perhaps an autism diagnosis.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> How do you know that hasn't happened already? Barring perhaps an autism diagnosis.



Not necessarily a direct response but it's always been an interesting idea that most if not all cubers would score pretty highly on autism tests (tendancy to obsess, visual/mathematical minded, highly competitive etc) or maybe ADHD (fidgets a lot, fiddling, sometimes twitchy etc).


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jan 1, 2016)

Someone should just try what Laszlo Polgar did but with cubing.


----------



## stoic (Jan 1, 2016)

Isaac Lai said:


> Someone should just try what Laszlo Polgar did but with cubing.


Well...something with an evidence base would certainly be a welcome addition to much of the discussion in this thread.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2016)

Isaac Lai said:


> Someone should just try what Laszlo Polgar did but with cubing.



I'm sure half of the current generation of cubers already will... 

But then they may have both nature and nurture on their side.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jan 1, 2016)

stoic said:


> Well...something with an evidence base would certainly be a welcome addition to much of the discussion in this thread.



Come to think about it, what about Chan Hong Lik and Yu Da-Hyun? Since they got fast when they were young, I doubt that they would have considered that they wouldn't be able to get fast because of their genes. Is this not a perfect example?


----------



## Torch (Jan 1, 2016)

Isaac Lai said:


> Come to think about it, what about Chan Hong Lik and Yu Da-Hyun? Since they got fast when they were young, I doubt that they would have considered that they wouldn't be able to get fast because of their genes. Is this not a perfect example?



For a second I thought you were suggesting that they should have a child together.


----------



## TMarshall (Jan 1, 2016)

I feel like the people who are very good at cubing (mattia, Chris) seem to put very little emphasis on natural talent, while the not so fast people just want an excuse for why they're not fast...

Serious thoughts:
If you're young, and you're in good mental and physical health, you can be world class at cubing.


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Jan 1, 2016)

TMarshall said:


> I feel like the people who are very good at cubing (mattia, Chris) seem to put very little emphasis on natural talent, while the not so fast people just want an excuse for why they're not fast...
> 
> Serious thoughts:
> If you're young, and you're in good mental and physical health, you can be world class at cubing.



Maybe 4 years ago yes, not these years. I have been cubing for 6 years now. I have practised a lot, on average more than 1 hour a hour a day. I don't think I can get to Mats or Feliks levels. However it doesn't stop me from cubing. I think Mats has practised more than me because he started in 2007. But I have practised more in the 6 years than he did in the first 6 years and my progression was slower. While being completely not color blind, able to solve easily on white and yellow (not blue, and partly green). So I highly doubt I will be on world class level, which is top 10 in my mind


----------



## adimare (Jan 1, 2016)

TMarshall said:


> I feel like the people who are very good at cubing (mattia, Chris) seem to put very little emphasis on natural talent, while the not so fast people just want an excuse for why they're not fast...


I see the exact opposite. Many are basically saying "I'm just as talented as Feliks and Mats, they've just practised more than I have".



TMarshall said:


> Serious thoughts:
> If you're young, and you're in good mental and physical health, you can be world class at cubing.


Most cubers fit that description, and only a handful are world class.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 1, 2016)

I haven't read every post, but I have been following this thread with interest. I would say that I tend to be on the same side as Dene for a lot of the discussion I have read. I think genetics plays a large role, practice can overcome this, but only to a point.

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.


----------



## adimare (Jan 1, 2016)

I don't think anyone is saying practice isn't important, all we're saying is that it's not enough.



cmhardw said:


> 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."



I've always thought of knowledge and intelligence as completely different things too, the only distinction is that I'd define intelligence as something like "the ease to use the knowledge that you have to achieve goals".


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 1, 2016)

cmhardw said:


> I haven't read every post, but I have been following this thread with interest. I would say that I tend to be on the same side as Dene for a lot of the discussion I have read. I think genetics plays a large role, practice can overcome this, but only to a point.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



+1 

Very well said :tu


----------



## MWilson (Jan 1, 2016)

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.

With the water tower analogy, there would have to be many holes available to pour water in. Each hole would represent a different intellectual ability, and vary in size from one person to another. If a person is unsatisfied with their fill rate, they may need search for a larger hole.

To be clear, I am only arguing the side point stated in the first sentence. I would agree if one pointed out that speed-solving still has a reliance on genetic physical traits for hand movement, I just don't believe that using the names of world class athletes is reasonable when discussing a skill that is mainly a matter of mental improvement.


----------



## adimare (Jan 1, 2016)

MWilson said:


> ...I just don't believe that using the names of world class athletes is reasonable when discussing a skill that is mainly a matter of mental improvement.



I think you're downplaying the physical aspect of cubing. For CFOP, for instance, the last layer of the cube takes a big chunk of your solve time at medium and high levels, and it is mostly physical.


----------



## MWilson (Jan 1, 2016)

adimare said:


> I think you're downplaying the physical aspect of cubing. For CFOP, for instance, the last layer of the cube takes a big chunk of your solve time at medium and high levels, and it is mostly physical.



In my closing I stated that I would agree with speed-solving still having some reliance on physical prowess.

You're right, it is mostly physical, but not nearly to the same level as athletics. The genetic reliance is almost completely on very specific non-interchangeable physical traits for athletics. With such a significant amount of the genetic reliance of speed-solving being on a malleable brain and interchangeable approaches, I don't think there is enough of a parallel to athletics to make reasonable reference to it in this kind of discussion.


----------



## Dene (Jan 2, 2016)

JanW said:


> I don't think we will see anyone born with a special ability for cubing until an autistic savant comes along with cube visualization and/or alg learning skills that are far beyond reach for other cubers.



Learning algs has very little to do with speedcubing. It's processing the state of the cube, and finger speed. Feliks clearly has these abilities better than most. In saying that, he isn't unique and there appear to be others that could quite possibly match him (and there's no reason to believe there won't be anyone better in the future).



shadowslice e said:


> Well, actually, no. Bar maybe 2 or 3 people everyone agreed from the start that genetics/natural talent plays an important role.
> 
> That only real argument is everyone trying to show you that you are really downplaying/ignoring the fact that practise/breaks or lack thereof definitely also play a role almost as significant, if not just as or perhaps even more significant than whatever natural talent an individual possesses.



There were quite a few people, and it was the disagreement with my first statement that blew out this whole discussion, so obviously the disagreement existed to a reasonable extent.

Also, I suggest you go back and read this entire thread again, as I never downplayed the role of practise. Perhaps if you re-read it for what it is, and without making baseless assumptions about my point of view, you'll realise you're not disagreeing with me at all. Let me directly quote a line from my first post in this discussion just in case you can't be bothered (italics added just to emphasise how much emphasis I clearly place on practise):



Dene said:


> ... 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_.





MWilson said:


> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> To be clear, I am only arguing the side point stated in the first sentence. I would agree if one pointed out that speed-solving still has a reliance on genetic physical traits for hand movement, I just don't believe that using the names of world class athletes is reasonable when discussing a skill that is mainly a matter of mental improvement.



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.



cmhardw said:


> I think genetics plays a large role, practice can overcome this, but only to a point.



In essence I pretty much agree entirely with what you've said here. The anology could do with more detail, but we'd be here forever trying to work out the definition of "intelligence" 

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


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 2, 2016)

Dene said:


> In essence I pretty much agree entirely with what you've said here. The anology could do with more detail, but we'd be here forever trying to work out the definition of "intelligence"
> 
> 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:
> 
> ...



I do agree with your two points about how genetics influences cubing. That is very well put.


----------



## pjk (Jan 4, 2016)

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. 



Dene said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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. 



Dene said:


> 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.



cmhardw said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.



MWilson said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.



Dene said:


> 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.



Dene said:


> 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.


----------



## KenBrace (Jan 4, 2016)

Dene said:


> 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.



I think it's very similar to chess.

You could live and breath it every single day but unless you have the talent, you'll never be as good as Bobby Fischer or Gary Kosporov. 

I'd say it's something like 90% practice and 10% talent. Anyone can go that 80% - 90% but it takes that extra 10% bit of talent to reach the very top and actually break a world record or become a world champion in chess.

But one thing to remember about cubing is that more luck is involved than is so in chess. Every chess game starts out the same. Every cube starts out differently. You don't have to be the best 3x3 solver in the world to break the world record. You just need lots of skill and a lucky scramble. That's one thing that I don't really like about speed cubing. The luck aspect. But at the same time, if every solve were the same then it would be incredibly boring.


----------



## Dene (Jan 5, 2016)

pjk said:


> lots of stuff



I hear what you're saying, and I don't think we disagree too much about the fundamentals. I just want to clarify something. In most of my posts I was being general, not specific to Feliks/other top cubers. As in: _in general_ genetics will play a role at the top level of cubing (as with other physical activities that I frequently alluded to).

We only really seem to disagree on whether cubing has reached that level or not. On this point we can only speculate so I'm not really interested in trying to defend my view. I do think Feliks (and possibly Maskow) is at the point where someone that doesn't have the natural talent won't be able to consistently match him. I could be wrong, but don't lose sight of the fact that solving a cube at 8-10tps consistently is actually quite insane. Perhaps super new methods that can solve the puzzle in much less moves will allow for faster times. But with the way cubing methods are at the moment, I don't think anyone without the right genetics could match that tps consistently.

The only other thing I want to say is I think you misunderstood me when I said cubing is physical, and not mental. What I mean is, in the moment, in a competition, when you sit down to solve that thing as fast as possible, the vast majority of what happens is purely physical. The mental work is done in training, as it is with any sport (even sprinting). But when you actually go to solve in competition the last thing you want to be doing is thinking about it.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 5, 2016)

People do learn at different rates. Whether or not that's genetic, I don't know, but it's a fact that 10 hours of practice for me will give a different result than 10 hours for another person. There's a study somewhere that I can't find now that looks at the number of hours of practice it took several chess players to reach grandmaster status. It varies wildly from less than 2000 for some to over 20000 for others. I don't see why cubing would be different. Sure, we can all reach sub-10, maybe even sub-8, but some of us will need to put in a lot more effort to get there. So, what is it that makes some people improve so quickly compared to others?

That said, I'd say its maybe 5% natural talent, 85% practice and 10% raw determination that leads to world class (consistently sub-8 average) times.


----------



## TheChaiCuber (Jan 5, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


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



I think it should be understood that while Feliks doesn't hold all the single WRs, he _does_ wreck in all the average WRs. He owns it for most of the cubic puzzles which are the cubes he truly participates in (I suspect, I don't have any inside info or video confirming this): the 3x3, 5x5, 6x6 and 7x7. Though he doesn't hold the 3x3 single, he does hold it for the 4x4, 5x5 and 7x7. I take nothing away from Lucas who did I ridiculous sub-5 official solve, a solve in which he obviously predicted the PLL skip or used one of those single LL algorithms (I think some of those algorithms are the same as OLL algorithms, with the difference is knowing that it's a PLL skip if you look at it from OLL perspective). Feliks may not have the turn speed and he may not have the singles record which everyone gives most acclaim towards, but I truly believe he's the world's best and most consistent cubic puzzle cuber.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 5, 2016)

KenBrace said:


> I think it's very similar to chess.
> 
> You could live and breath it every single day but unless you have the talent, you'll never be as good as Bobby Fischer or Gary Kosporov.
> 
> ...



chess is very unlike cubing in that it is 100% knowledge based and it takes at least 1-2 decades to play at the top level, with huge participation and huge competition. speedsolving is just starting out, people become world class in a few years of hard practice. the knowledge you need in speedsolving is not much, some algs, f2l cases, ability to do some blockbuilding. it comes down to mostly good lookahead and tps, both of which i think most people can develop sufficiently to become world class in their lifetime if they do a good amount of practice.


----------



## adimare (Jan 5, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> chess is very unlike cubing in that it is 100% knowledge based...



That is completely false. You can have 2 people with the same knowledge about the game performing at completely different levels. Even at the top level, there are tons of IMs out there that know just as much (if not more) about the game than some GMs but can simply not see the moves that more talented players can. Chess is actually a great example of a skill where natural ability makes a huge difference when it comes to how well a person performs/improves.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> That is completely false. You can have 2 people with the same knowledge about the game performing at completely different levels. Even at the top level, there are tons of IMs out there that know just as much (if not more) about the game than some GMs but can simply not see the moves that more talented players can. Chess is actually a great example of a skill where natural ability makes a huge difference when it comes to how well a person performs/improves.



You're right about the knowledge thing. But i still believe the skill needed to reach today's world class level is no where near where lack of oustanding talent can cause you to fail. Some people said they felt at full time 3x3 speedsolver, they would not be able to do it in 20 years. I would think, starting young, at most it would take 5 years practicing 6-8 hours a day for most people to become world class. I would expect the majority to do it in around 1-2 years. talent will defintely set peaple apart, but hardwork (and relatively not that hard of an effort) is enough now to be a top cuber.


----------



## whauk (Jan 7, 2016)

I haven't read the thread but I wanted to add that just some days ago there was a german report about "superbrains" on TV, in which they portrayed the Weyer twins.
They also made some scientific tests with the following results:
Their physical ability to move fingers/hands is average. (They had to tap fingers as fast as they can and similar stuff. A scientist conducted the test so I think it is reliable)
In some math-like puzzles they also performed average. (They had to sort some disks according to some rules. Don't ask me how it worked)
However they were above average in cognitive tasks. (Again I don't know exactly what they did. They were shown sitting in front of a screen with different figures. Maybe it were some IQ-test-like tasks of sorting the odd one out and so on.)


----------



## pjk (Jan 7, 2016)

whauk said:


> I haven't read the thread but I wanted to add that just some days ago there was a german report about "superbrains" on TV, in which they portrayed the Weyer twins.
> They also made some scientific tests with the following results:
> Their physical ability to move fingers/hands is average. (They had to tap fingers as fast as they can and similar stuff. A scientist conducted the test so I think it is reliable)
> In some math-like puzzles they also performed average. (They had to sort some disks according to some rules. Don't ask me how it worked)
> However they were above average in cognitive tasks. (Again I don't know exactly what they did. They were shown sitting in front of a screen with different figures. Maybe it were some IQ-test-like tasks of sorting the odd one out and so on.)


Sounds interesting, I'd be interested in hearing more about the tests and checking out the report. Can you provide anymore info or a link? Thanks.


----------



## Escher (Jan 7, 2016)

Just from what you've said I don't think those tests are that 'scientific' - or at least, they're not doing testing that has any reasonable relationship to speedcubing ability. IQ testing is a messy enough field and tapping fingers is silly. Though it is TV so there's that. 

Regarding the rest of the discussion I think there are important genetic determinants for cubing ability but they are probably 'under the hood', so to speak. 

To me, it seems most young people can practice RUR'U' a bunch and get just as fast (or faster) than I am at it - get a bunch of sub-9 cubers together and get them to handscramble as fast as they can and I imagine the variance will be fairly small. So I'm hesitant to say that raw ability to turn is a massive influence (though it is certainly there).

I think there are some parallels in computer gaming - having the ability to use very precise timing in long chains of button and mouse presses without needing to process any of those actions discretely. To me, it's the ability to encode the sending of a large number of individually precise and complex commands at high speed which is genetically determined (phew!). I think most people can perform these with practice (ever seen videos of factory line workers?) but cubing requires a massive bank of these actions, each of which present themselves in a multitude of forms and chains. So I like to assume that a proclivity for it helps a ton when trying to be top 0.1%. 

I do think these things are distinct for fine motor skills compared to large motor skills (cubing vs sports). From an evolutionary psychology pov this would seem to make sense - an intelligence for chasing things down and an intelligence for precise tool use are both useful but simultaneous development would be 'over budget'. 

This is all guesswork but I do think high-level speedcubing taps into a very interesting niche of 'intelligence' that isn't really covered by 'move your hands fast' or 'solve this hard problem', and there is something more fundamental going on.


----------



## whauk (Jan 7, 2016)

pjk said:


> Sounds interesting, I'd be interested in hearing more about the tests and checking out the report. Can you provide anymore info or a link? Thanks.



Well it is a german TV report. It should be viewable for some more days at this link: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/kana...2632228/Supertalent-Mensch-II:-Die-Superhirne

@others:
It may be that those tests were not so focused on cubing specific skills. But however we can most likely conclude that speedcubing doesn't require some above average dexterity. Because if it would, they would have performed better at the first set of tests.


----------



## Dene (Jan 8, 2016)

Escher said:


> This is all guesswork but I do think high-level speedcubing taps into a very interesting niche of 'intelligence' that isn't really covered by 'move your hands fast' or 'solve this hard problem', and there is something more fundamental going on.



You mean like processing speed?

Ocrap I totes mentioned that way back at the start of this discussion.


----------



## Absence (Jan 8, 2016)

The community has been evolving over the years. People find new ways to do the same thing, get faster. They get better and better equipment, cube and mind alike.

By continuously trying to break what was previously thought to be impossible is what's so amazing about speedcubing and what keeps me going.

From the very first time I solved a cube to my first sub-10, I've been trying to get better, more efficient, hopefully one day world class.

In the end, it's a culmination of practice, dedication, natural talent, and most importantly fun all put together. This is what makes up a world class speed cuber.


----------



## KenBrace (Jan 8, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> chess is very unlike cubing in that it is 100% knowledge based and it takes at least 1-2 decades to play at the top level, with huge participation and huge competition. speedsolving is just starting out, people become world class in a few years of hard practice. the knowledge you need in speedsolving is not much, some algs, f2l cases, ability to do some blockbuilding. it comes down to mostly good lookahead and tps, both of which i think most people can develop sufficiently to become world class in their lifetime if they do a good amount of practice.



Chess is different than cubing, yes. But the general talent vs practice ratio is roughly the same I think. It takes a lot of practice to become a GM and it takes a lot of practice to become a sub-10 solver. It also takes natural talent to become a 2700+ rated chess player and it takes natural talent to become a world record contender in speed cubing.

Skip to 2:15...






Bobby Fischer's answer also applies to speed solving in my opinion. Some people are simple more intelligent, have faster reflexes, can learn faster, have a greater ability to concentrate, etc. than others. 

I used to do a lot of skateboarding with my brother and even though we practiced evenly I found it difficult to keep up with him in certain areas. I was just somehow unable to keep up with the rate at which he was mastering new tricks down stair sets. I got better the more I practiced but his natural talent gave him an advantage.

On the other hand, when it comes to speed cubing he is unable to keep up with me. The same goes for a friend of mine. They don't lack determination or practice time. There's just something about their physiology that slows them down a little.

This same concept applies to most skills in life. The most important thing is practice but everyone has their physical limit and that limit is different for each person.


----------



## PingSkills (Jan 12, 2016)

Great discussion. Here are 3 books that I really enjoyed on this topic:

Bounce by Matthew Syed
The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

I enjoyed reading these books and would highly recommend them. The basic premise of these books is that you can become World class at anything you want, you just need to practice the right way for 10,000 hours. It's really nice to believe that this is true. However when I really think about that I just can't agree with it. Sure, to become World class might take 10,000 hours of practice but not everyone who trains that much will. Talent certainly plays a role in sport and I believe in cubing. If you go to any kids sporting event and watch for 30 seconds you'll be able to identify which kids are talented (try it). Certain kids are just better and it's not because they have practiced more. To me it follows that for cubing certain people are going to be better, have more "natural talent", and some of those will end up practicing enough to become World class.


----------



## RubikZz (Aug 9, 2017)

Sorry of this is already said, I just reader online the first page.
There is a theorie that of you train more than 10.000 hours, if it's in sprinting, or playing music, you can be good at it. But you need to have feeling about it. I would never become a good sprinter like Usain Bolt, because I don't have that body. But if you look at Usain Bolt, they say it's the fastest man on earth, not really, he is the greatest at 100, 200 and if he started running 400 meter (he was to lazy and it was harder for his body to practice) he would also be good at it. But from a distance of 800 meters he wouldn't win, because he don't have the body for it, so he is not the fastest man on let's say 1500 meter. He is also been born on the right place on the right time, Jamaica is an athletic island. I'm living in the Netherlands, we have good swimmers and good ice skaters, (also athletics) maybe there are also good swimmers and ice skaters on Jamaica, but because it isn't a sport there they would never be discovered because they started track and field or stuck at it and just started a "normal" life, working get children (what's normal). If Usain Bolt was born on an different place in the world, where he can't started sprinting we would never heard of him, maybe in a different sport, but I don't think so. I think soccer players like Ronaldo and Arjen Robben would also be great sprinters, but they start playing soccer. How many great cubers are there in the world that never started cubing, because they weren't on the right place on the right moment? Or they givin up? Churandy Martina, a Dutch sprinter (100 and 200 meter) from Curaçao started at the same time as Usain Bolt and is still in the top of the world. At his fourth Olympics in Rio he said he saw many sprinters come and go, his thoughts about it is because a lot of them givin up, because it's hard working to stay in the top and it cost a lot of money. We now have Dafne Schippers (just god bronze on the 100 meter and hopefully she wins at the 200 meter in a few days) but she is the first great Dutch female sprinter in the Netherlands after Fanny Blankers-Koen. Because she started sprinting, like I said earlier, if she started cicling, soccer, swimming, or ice-skating, we probably would never hear of her Maybe she is also good at a sport that we don't play in the Netherlands, but because she is born here she does sprinting, so she can't change or set new world records at a whole different sport like Usain Bolt chances the track and field sport.
Back about cubing, I think it has to be a sort of genetics, and practice enough and being on the right place at the right moment. I'm just restarted after 3 years, and have finally become sub 20 avg. If I look at video's now I'm just understand everything better, one because my English is better, but two because, if I look back, I didn't understand the logic behind it, and still I think so. I know people with a very low IQ, I believe I can learn them to solve a Rubik's Cube, but they would never get as fast as the top, even if they train more than that 10.000 hours. On a school test of me my spatial awareness (?) was like 3/4 out of 10. I think that's doesn't help cubing much. I'm never be intuitive even with F2L, that doens't help speedcubing also. A boy I learned cubing was a fast learner, he saw the logic behind it directly. Sadly he didn't want to solve it as fast as he can. He just liked it to solve it in front of the tv. But I still think he would be a fast cuber. And what Feliks always says people on school have the most practice time, if you become older you have to study, going to work, maybe get children. So my conclusion is, genetic, practise, and being on the right place on the right moment. What if Max Park and Feliks Zemdegs started at the same time with the cubing community and record, competition when Feliks started. I think it is possible it would be a two battle like Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin, but than a bit friendlier. Or what if Feliks just started last year? Probably the world records where been very low so he never could get the 100 world records, probably not even 20/30. But there both another discussion.


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 12, 2017)

Dene said:


> 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.


Uh, no, sprinting is different from cubing. If I had all the free time in the world, and I was a devout cuber, I could practice 5+ hours a day, learn full OLL and PLL, learn all the F2L algorithms and how to insert them from all different angles, learn ZBLL, WV, COLL, BLE, VLS, CLS, and other algorithm sets, spend a lot of time drilling all of these algorithms, become color neutral, learn tips from faster cubers, watch example solves from faster cubers, train my look ahead to be near perfect, learn how to do an X-Cross, practice finding pairs in inspection, keep practicing, etc., and in a few years time, I'd be faster than Feliks!



PingSkills said:


> Great discussion. Here are 3 books that I really enjoyed on this topic:
> 
> Bounce by Matthew Syed
> The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle
> ...


Talent makes you get better more easily at first, but in the long run, it can be a bad thing. This is because you start thinking, 'Oh, I'm so talented at this, I don't need to work hard.' So you start slacking off, practicing less, learning less new techniques, and by the time you realize what's happening, it's too late, cause your so used to having it easy that you can't get into the habit of being a hard worker.



tseitsei said:


> Well then it becomes more of a question of "What is world class?"
> 
> Top100?
> Top10?
> ...


For just 3x3, I'd say Sub-8 or Sub-7.5.


----------



## turtwig (Aug 12, 2017)

MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> Uh, no, sprinting is different from cubing. If I had all the free time in the world, and I was a devout cuber, I could practice 5+ hours a day, learn full OLL and PLL, learn all the F2L algorithms and how to insert them from all different angles, learn ZBLL, WV, COLL, BLE, VLS, CLS, and other algorithm sets, spend a lot of time drilling all of these algorithms, become color neutral, learn tips from faster cubers, watch example solves from faster cubers, train my look ahead to be near perfect, learn how to do an X-Cross, practice finding pairs in inspection, keep practicing, etc., and in a few years time, I'd be faster than Feliks!



Most people could devote all their time to practicing and would probably reach world class, but the point is that some people will have a much easier time. If we gathered 100 people that have never seen a cube, locked them in a room for a year, and told them to learn how to speedsolve and practice all day, chances are, at the end of the year, some of the people would be better, and some would be worse, even if they practiced the exact same amount, due to differences in how they were raised, knowledge of other subjects, genetics, IQ, etc.

Really the only difference between cubing and sprinting or other professional sports is that cubing is not as big, so almost no one practices for a living. If cubing were as big as sprinting and there was a lot of money to be made, there would probably be a small group of geniuses that cube all the time and 'normal' people would find it very hard to compete with them.



MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> Talent makes you get better more easily at first, but in the long run, it can be a bad thing. This is because you start thinking, 'Oh, I'm so talented at this, I don't need to work hard.' So you start slacking off, practicing less, learning less new techniques, and by the time you realize what's happening, it's too late, cause your so used to having it easy that you can't get into the habit of being a hard worker.



That's only if you're a lazy person. Many people are diligent enough to take advantage of their talents (example: basically anyone that's world class in anything).


----------



## tx789 (Aug 12, 2017)

Anyone can be world class but not every one can't put them selves through the practise required or believe they can do it. 
Lack of believe is a big factor. People who believe they are geneticly inferior won't do as well, they got into it thinking "I can't be world class" , then there is the factor of motivation. Some people don't have motivation to get better or are content with where they are. Some people don't have enough of an interest to get that far.


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 13, 2017)

turtwig said:


> Most people could devote all their time to practicing and would probably reach world class, but the point is that some people will have a much easier time. If we gathered 100 people that have never seen a cube, locked them in a room for a year, and told them to learn how to speedsolve and practice all day, chances are, at the end of the year, some of the people would be better, and some would be worse, even if they practiced the exact same amount, due to differences in how they were raised, knowledge of other subjects, genetics, IQ, etc.
> 
> Really the only difference between cubing and sprinting or other professional sports is that cubing is not as big, so almost no one practices for a living. If cubing were as big as sprinting and there was a lot of money to be made, there would probably be a small group of geniuses that cube all the time and 'normal' people would find it very hard to compete with them.
> 
> ...


I'm not denying that talent can make it easier if used correctly, my argument is that anyone _can_ be faster than Feliks, even if it takes them longer than it took him.


----------



## Gomorrite (Aug 13, 2017)

MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> Uh, no, sprinting is different from cubing. If I had all the free time in the world, and I was a devout cuber, I could practice 5+ hours a day, learn full OLL and PLL, learn all the F2L algorithms and how to insert them from all different angles, learn ZBLL, WV, COLL, BLE, VLS, CLS, and other algorithm sets, spend a lot of time drilling all of these algorithms, become color neutral, learn tips from faster cubers, watch example solves from faster cubers, train my look ahead to be near perfect, learn how to do an X-Cross, practice finding pairs in inspection, keep practicing, etc., and in a few years time, I'd be faster than Feliks!


Another outcome of that: by the time you are finally approaching Feliks' times, you are already 70 and you get arthritis. Game over.


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 13, 2017)

Gomorrite said:


> Another outcome of that: by the time you are finally approaching Feliks' times, you are already 70 and you get arthritis. Game over.


 A depressing thought. And no, if you spend that much time on cubing, you could be seventeen and faster than Feliks, not seventy.


----------

