Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: IQ is not static, genetic differences inconsequential.
Summary: Nature vs. Nurture...sigh...
Message-ID: <1785@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 1 Aug 89 15:30:50 GMT
References: <3549@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <4431@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <485@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 44

In article <485@edai.ed.ac.uk>, cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550) writes:
> I presume that you do not suppose that simply by working at it you could
> become an Olympic standard weightlifter. I certainly don't think I
> could, even if I had started exercising in the cradle: I come from a
> long line of weeds and weaklings, some of whom have made heroic but vain
> efforts to acquire Charles Atlas, or even average muscular endowment. Why
> should mental strength behave differently than physical strength?

Having dabbled in bodybuilding for some years myself, I read all the
rags that talk about the superior "genetics" of champions such as Lee
Haney, Rich Gaspari, etc. Never mind that nobody can point to genes or
protein mechanisms that mediate the ability of the champion athlete's
muscles to undergo astounding hypertrophy in response to heavy
progressive training. Everyone can readily observe 100 athletes
training almost identically (weights, sets, reps, diet, rest
intervals), and all 100 display different development. The exact type
of training is critically important to an individual's reaching
her/his maximum level of development, but the differences between
individual potentials appear to overwhelm any nuance of training. The
books and magazines present the training programs used by the
champions, but they only promise you that you will get *some* sort of
positive result, not necessarily of the magnitude you see in the
photos.

Accordingly, I had thought that the individual's genetic propensity
toward athleticism was universally recognized. But a few months ago a
newsgroup far, far away (rec.bicycles) hosted a debate on the role of
genetics in competitive bicycling. After a decade of bicycling, I am
now very familiar with the relationship between how hard an effort I
make in training and how fit I become. Nonetheless, I also see that
athletes such as Greg Lemond (1989 Tour de France champion) seem to
get better results than I do. Never mind that Lemond can tolerate
training schedules that would put me into intensive care. Even though
I can't identify the "bicycle genes" I don't have any problem
believing that Lemond has some inner ability that I simply do not
have. However, I found that not everyone thinks so. In the rec.bicycles
debate several posters put forward notions that anyone can do essentially
anything if they train correctly and have the proper motivation. While
I understand that self-doubt can limit one's success, I think I can
maintain a positive attitude without closing my eyes to the obvious
differences between people.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu