Looking for society's coaches

Lately the debate between nature and nurture in terms of particular skills has again come to fore, at least to my own mind. Discussion of Lance Armstrong's alleged use of steroids by former teamates has produced a flurry of print material on the subject. One such editorial appeared in the local paper today, stating essentially that elite athletes are freaks of nature, and no amount of steroid use could ever take an average person and make them an athletic elite.

My reading of Dr. Tim Noakes, the author discussed in yesterday's post, reinforces this interpretation by highlighting the role that genetic endowment plays in elite performance. It is a concept I have struggled against for several years, holding out that a top-level time for whatever level I was competing at (high school, college, etc.) was simply a matter of motivation. "Just train a lot" was the mantra for many years, during which I stopped swimming competitively, ran more than I had ever run in my life, and took to reading the major interpretations of distance training. The results were mixed, with some improved times, especially in the longer events (8km and 10km).

The genetic endownment side of things is countered, to my knowledge, by the environmental-factors school, which suggests that one's environment and habits constitute the most important element of elite performance. Sociologists appear to advocate this position more or less, and well as such popular authors as Malcolm Gladwell and Larry Gluck (authors of Outliers and The Talent Myth respectively). The thought in the latter two works is that so-called "smart" and "talented" people are overrated, and that practice and environmental factors are more useful in explaining the performace of the greats than their genetic endowment. In Gladwell's book Outliers, he points to specific opportunities and outside help that so-called "talented" individuals had on their way to success, and how that help allowed them to acquire the roughly 10,000 hours of practice necessary to acquire expertise with a cetain skill. In short, it was the environment that made the individual successful, and not a favorable biological endowment.

Little is clear to me on this at present, though I have embraced each school of thinking at the expense of other off and on for several years. The point is that both schools provide important insight into a fundamental interest for many people, which is maximizing one's potential in such activities and fields which that person enjoys. Indeed, it is in the collective interest of all of us that this goal be achieved, as it is not only the individual who benefits from a maximized potential, but all of society as well. The necessity of bearing genetic limitations in mind while developing a craft through rigorous practice would seem to require a special balance, the distribution of which depends on the peculiar personalities and environment of the individual.

The improvement of society by the maximization of individual potential require a specific group of people who can provide this service for people with a regularity that defies the highly individual nature of human beings. These "coaches," if we may use the word, can be found through all facets of society, though their quality is not always good. Perhaps we should look for these "coaches" if we wish to study the process of talent cultivation in society.