No, not emotional control, emotional capacity. By emotional capacity I mean one's ability to handle pressure. One can always maximize the ability they have, but cannot increase that capability. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but rather many studies have indicated this. I think one can put themselves under pressure a lot and get use to it and become more immune to it, but that is not the same as being able to excel under pressure. This is why there are very very few great sports stars yet there are millions of great athletes. Everyone can be trained, not everyone can excel.
Bah, I don't buy it. Sounds like alot of hand waving to me. Even great players fold under pressure. I see it all the time in professional sports. The more mature the great player, the more likely they are to excel in pressure situations - read experience, not some weird talent for "performing under pressure." Some people do seem to thrive on pressure, but the statistical analysis that I have seen casts doubts on it as a real effect... nitro
You're talking about two different things: "capacity" (?), which you define as control under pressure, and excelling under pressure, which is vague. If you are a grandmaster you <i>by definition</i> excel under pressure. The article is describing a certain cognitive ability that comes from learning any skill, whether it's chess, driving a car, archery, etc. Notice how they mentioned the real pros could recognize patterns in the first few seconds of a move, not by analyzing extensive possibilities, and not by controlling how they feel. Emotional control is necessary, but secondary to this function. Your subconscious thinks much faster than your conscious mind. You train your subconscious by either experiencing trauma, or by repeatedly running your conscious mind through routines until it records the process automatically. (awesome article by the way, nitro!)
my late dad was a child prodigy musician he won 2nd place in a state wide competition when he was a teenager and grew up to become a top flight jazzman yes ... you cannot teach this ... but even he needed to practice almost daily ... of course he could go without practicing and pick up the pieces ... but only top people in their prof. can do this and even he had some self doubts at times I think everyone even those tops in their fields have some self doubts at times
Maverick, the analogy of tiger woods is interesting. He was trained intensely from the age of what, 4 years old? Before he could possibly have linked his golfing ability, with monetary rewards? Maybe that neural pathway was developed independently of a "learned" or taught method. If he hadn't been drilled in golfing like that, could he have picked it up later in life, or still be as cool under pressure- Did he have true innate ability at this age?
Nope. Read about how his dad trained him. Or according to the article: "Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it. ... Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one. László Polgár, an educator in Hungary, homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as six hours of work a day, producing one international master and two grandmasters--the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. The youngest Polgár, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world." coincidence?
Yes, Tiger was trained from a young age as was tennis great Andre Agassi who picked up a racquet at the age of 4. There is no doubt that most these professional athletes developed their "physical" skill at an early age as well as their hand eye co-ordination. Can we truly say this is what led to their greatness? I really don't think so. I started playing baseball at a very early age. No, not 4 but maybe 7. I played every day. Was I a great athlete? No, lol, certainly not great. But man did I try. And I even had great genes to boot. I knew many friends that also started young in various sports. It's very common when you grow up in suburbia to have your parents throw you into as many sports as they can to get you out of their hair. Most these kids were lucky to make varsity on their squads in HS. Hardly any of them got athletic scholarships to college. And none of my friends made it to the professional level of anything. Not even close. And believe me, some of these guys were committed. So I cannot attribute Tiger's greatness to playing at an early age. Now let me clarify something, because I am using the term greatness here to describe people who we belive to be at the pinnacle of their sport. Joe Montana and Bears quarterback Rex Grossman are not the same people, as much as I like Rex. I am talking about real greatness here. There are many golfers on the PGA tour who have made it to the professional ranks. And lately, they can't hold a candle to Tiger. They hit the ball as well as Tiger, in fact some better. They put just as well, in fact, it's one of Tiger's weaker shots. They practice as much as Tiger. But you know what, when Tiger has to make a put, when he absolutely has to, the guy does, and that is called playing well under pressure. It's what separates all athletes. Is Andy Roddick a great tennis player? You betcha he is. Best serve in men's tennis by a mile. But what does it tell you that when he played Rodger Federer at the final at the US open a few weeks back that not only did Federer outplay Andy, he out aced him 17-7. That's right, a guy that is not even known for having a decent serve, out aced the best server in men's tennis 2 to 1. Andy, ladies and gentlemen, is a great athlete, but does not make the shots when it counts, he folds under pressure. You see very few people have that gift. I don't buy into this if you practice enough it becomes 2nd nature argument, I just don't. Andy is out on the courts 10 hours a day. He is probably the hardest working guy on the men's tour. He picked up a racquet at age 5 as well. He is a great physical player. But when he plays Rodger Federer, he loses, and loses and loses. Andy has beaten Rodger once in 14 tries or so. The matches are usually pretty close. Rodger does not blow Andy off the court. He simply makes the shots he has to make under pressure, Andy does not. Same goes for Tiger. Most of the guys on the men's tour now lift weights and can drive a ball 320 yards. And most can put as well if not better then Tiger. Tiger just has this incredible ability to focus and concentrate, keep ice in his veins, and when he has to, "summon his talent at will".
Well, im kinda familiar with tigers training, dogballoon. You have to have seen those videos, it sure LOOKED like natural talent (with his father hovering on the sidelines, not terribly inconspiciously ) But the monetary aspect-I thought mav might have something there, but i suspect he's talking about one and the same thing. Coping with pressure, and excelling under pressure-everyone dud's out sooner or later, just on averages, but it sure is interesting. Some peoples "dud" effort is likely the best many will ever do, even if their actually not too shabby in their field. Unfortunately, this look's like another genius' Vs all -the- other- chumps -arguement.
Awesome article that really deserves its own thread (putting it on page 42 wasn't a wise move), thanks nitro. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1157458#post1157458
Its a little bit of both with a defenite skew to the born side with regards to sports. In regards to trading I would say its close to even.