
Man and Superman - npalli
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell
======
tokenadult
People overestimate the effect of genetic advantages in sport. I have two
examples.

1) The first example is identical twins Otto and Ewald, who pursued different
sports and developed rather different physiques through their sports training.

[http://thesameffect.com/check-out-identical-twins-otto-
and-e...](http://thesameffect.com/check-out-identical-twins-otto-and-ewald/)

(I learned about this case from a local professor who teaches courses in human
behavior genetics. He uses this case as an example to correct
misunderstandings about genetics.)

2) The second example is that Usain Bolt was once thought to be too tall to be
a successful sprinter.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00v9bs4/profiles/usain-
bolt](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00v9bs4/profiles/usain-bolt)

[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/49040-usain-bolt-why-
the-...](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/49040-usain-bolt-why-the-fastest-
man-alive-is-in-the-wrong-business)

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/200...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2009/08/taking_sprinting_to_new_heights.html)

The simple fact is that athletic training reshapes bodies and makes what seems
impossible possible after all.

~~~
newnewnew
This Atlantic article suggests that you will never win an Olympic medal in
sprinting unless you come from West Africa[1]. This same population is bad at
distance running, where Kenyans dominate. There appears to be strong genetic
components at work here.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/the...](http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/the-
urgency-and-the-challenge-of-connecting-sports-race-and-genetics/278345/)

~~~
moron4hire
Distance running is the national sport in Kenya. They spend money on it like
the US spends money on football. Of course, not to quite the same degree, but
the point is still that it is their national sports focus. If Kenyan's are
genetically superior at marathons, then Americans are genetically superior at
football.

Countries as large as the US, India, China, etc., have large enough
populations that _someone_ in them should match the "genetic ideal" to excel
at a certain sport. It is economics that prevents them from doing so. Either
their country or culture doesn't value the sport and thus doesn't spend money
on it, or they must spend too much time earning to feed themselves that they
can't train.

Or that particular person has just never tried the sport. Or there are people
who are actually more genetically suited to the particular sport but are
discouraged from trying because they hear the current theories on what makes a
genetically suitable athlete for that sport.

All we know is that Kenya as a country has the ability to produce excellent
marathon runners. To heap all of that on "genetics" is grossly short-sited.

~~~
newnewnew
We know that subpopulations of humans vary drastically by phenotypes relevant
to athletic performance. The Dutch average adult male height is the highest on
the planet at 6'1". African pygmies separated from their Bantu relatives 4,000
- 5,000 years ago, and have since evolved to have an average male height of
4'11". Others are intermediate - the Japanese have an average male height of
5'7".

Within a breeding population, height tends to follow a normal distribution.
Depending on the standard deviation, there will be a few Japanese taller than
the average Dutch. But there will be far more Dutch than Japanese among the
very tallest men. This is a simple example, but in a sport where height
matters, like basketball, there will be far more Dutch who are good at it than
Japanese, and far more Japanese than pygmies.

Certainly culture matters, especially in sports where intelligence matters
more and raw physical talents matter less. But genetics also matter.

~~~
Dewie
It doesn't seem that height has everything to do with genetics, if we observe
the average heights of taller countries in the past. Things like diet and
perhaps healthcare are also factors. When it comes to the Dutch, they didn't
always use to be the tallest:

\- [http://suite101.com/article/why-are-the-dutch-so-
tall-a55753](http://suite101.com/article/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall-a55753)

------
Xcelerate
This is a very interesting article. I ran D1 track & field and cross-country a
couple of years ago, so I've put a lot of thought into this.

Personally, I think there are huge genetic variations between individuals. I
could never possibly train hard/effectively enough to compete with someone
like Bekele or Gebrselassie. I also think it is kind of hard for most people
(non-athletes) to understand this fact unless they have _personally_ spent
years training hard themselves.

That said, these huge genetic variations only set the ceiling of what you are
capable of. This is why I think that for the majority of people who
participate in sports, it is in fact a very fair endeavor. Even up through the
D1 level, I think hard work can more than compensate for most genetic
disadvantages. It becomes more difficult as you start to approach world-class,
but for 99% of people who are athletes of some form, anyone you would locally
compete against can be defeated simply by working harder.

It may not be fair in the sense that I might have to run 80 miles a week vs my
competitor running 30 miles a week to achieve the same result, but in the end,
all that matters is who has a faster time or a better score. Maybe that
bothers some people, but it doesn't bother me.

~~~
sliverstorm
_these huge genetic variations only set the ceiling of what you are capable
of._

It also sets how fast you can get there.

------
laichzeit0
In the sport of bodybuilding, genetic advantages do make it "unfair" because
you are most definitely constrained by it (zipper abs, unaesthetic chest
insertions).

But I wouldn't subscribe to this definition of fairness. Fairness seems more
about everyone playing by the same set of rules in the sport. If you start
including genetics into the rules then it would become unfair, purely by
defining it that way.

~~~
erkose
In bodybuilding, you are confusing genetics with steroids.

~~~
konstantintin
you can't get good bone and muscle structure from a needle!

------
6d0debc071
No more so than any other advantage. Some kids get good diets, encouragement,
the best teachers. Others get an abusive gym teacher, crap microwaved meals,
and parents who don't give a toss about them.

Honestly, looking at the sacrifices some sportspeople have to make in other
areas of their lives, I'm not sure I'd even want the advantages if they were
offered me. I mean I love martial arts, dancing, swimming, archery... but I'm
not sure I'd want to live the sort of life necessary to become the best in the
world in any of them. When did sports become about winning, rather than having
fun and making friends?

~~~
dagw
_When did sports become about winning_

Two thousand years ago or so (maybe more), when prize money and sponsorship
deals became a thing.

~~~
informatimago
Not 2000, in antiquity, they only earned some laurel (and it was as common as
today). Gold and silver medails started to be given 150 years ago. But now
it's finished, they only get worthless gold plated medails, plus e sponsorship
deals.

~~~
dagw
Valuable prizes in sport goes back to at least 500 BC. And even for events
that didn't have prize money, leveraging the fame that came with being the
winner of a great event into money and fortune was as common then as it is
now.

------
frank_boyd
> Do Genetic Advantages make sport unfair?

Our LIVES are determined by 2 factors:

1\. Genetics

2\. The environment in which our genetics are applied (social, economic,
ecologic, etc.)

Everything in our lives is caused by these two. So no, there is no real free
will and nobody is ever treated fairly.

And yes, our entire culture is still medieval with regards to accepting this
fact and taking it into account.

------
brudgers
Every example is of an individual sport. If one looks at team sports, the
advantage of any one phenotype over others begins to disappear: most tellingly
in the world's most popular sport. Top footballers range from Messi to Ronaldo
to Cech. "Third lung" is from the Korean penninsula, not 2000 meters.

~~~
chongli
You're just cherry-picking. Pick another sport: basketball. Here you'll find a
collection of players _way above_ average height. In fact, players who are
average height are the extreme outliers in basketball.

~~~
brudgers
Other than basketball, there are few team sports where stature is a specific
advantage (and stature is not a unique genetic characteristic like long
Achilles tendons or elevated red blood cells. Thus cricket, rugby, and
American football allow for a wide range of physiques at the elite level.

------
PeterisP
Sports competitions are about finding the best athlete, not purely the best
training regimen - and genes are part of the definition of who that athlete
is.

On the other hand, an interesting question would be about improved homo
sapiens - we will start to improve ourselves as a species at some point
(simply because there are so many imperfect things to improve), and at that
point 'unupgraded' athletes probably won't be competitive at all.

~~~
bayesianhorse
People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals.

Usually these advantages can't be quantified, they can hardly be predicted. It
takes a lot of math to do that for a population of athletes... and then the
top performer gets injured.

~~~
chongli
_People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals._

No, they don't. In fact, we're so aware of it that we have an entirely
separate category for athletes that lack a Y chromosome.

~~~
lkozma
I'm trying to understand the argument you are making, but it seems logically
correct only if the previous comment were "underestimate" instead of
"overestimate".

------
collyw
There wouldn't be the Paralypmics if genetics were fair.

------
informatimago
Of course. Let's equalize it all. Same genes, same education, same training,
same food. 120% pure clones. And then let's who's able to stick his head ahead
of the others. We can dig out our beloved Guillotine to see it that no one
ends first.</irony mode="dang">

~~~
rsheridan6
If we did equalize everything, then the result would be random luck, which is
also unfairm - sort of like how genetics are random luck.

Why don't we just change the rules so everyone wins?

~~~
streptomycin
The article is about fairness in terms of equality of opportunity, not
equality of outcome. It's not luck if one identical twin trains more than the
other and thus can run faster.

------
recursive
Nothing in life is fair. Why would sports be any different?

------
petegrif
Let's not allow competitive sports other than between people with identical
genomes and identical doping regimes. Then we can be confident that in most
instances the winner tried hardest. We already have lab standard rats with
identical DNA, so it shouldn't be too hard to clone a race of identical
competitive athletes.

------
professorplumb
Gladwell seems to be making the point that doping in sports is a sort of
reverse Harrison Bergeron, with the have-nots needing to "cheat" to get to the
same level as the genetically gifted haves.

What happens, though, when the most innately talented (Armstrong, Rodriguez,
Barry Bonds) also go in for enhancement?

------
teddyknox
Relevant XKCD. [http://xkcd.com/1173/](http://xkcd.com/1173/)

------
jl6
Exercise and training make sport unfair! Top athletes spend hours and hours at
it, every day, often forsaking a normal life and education, sometimes even
ruining their bodies in the process. And in doing so they gain a decisive
advantage over those who don't spend so long training.

------
jacinda
This article brings to mind the story of Harrison Bergeron, a short story set
in a dystopian future US that attempts to remove all possible sources of
inequality.

[http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html](http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)

------
bayesianhorse
I guess you can start talking about unfair genetic advantages when you have
zero doping...

Also I don't believe it matters at the top level. Even with high
heritabilities, the top performers will probably share the same "genetic"
advantages.

~~~
RodericDay
_Hamilton was eventually caught and was suspended from professional cycling.
He became one of the first in his circle to implicate Lance Armstrong,
testifying before federal investigators and appearing on “60 Minutes.” He says
that he regrets his years of using performance-enhancing drugs. The lies and
duplicity became an unbearable burden. His marriage fell apart. He sank into a
depression. His book is supposed to serve as his apology. At that task, it
fails. Try as he might—and sometimes he doesn’t seem to be trying very
hard—Hamilton cannot explain why a sport that has no problem with the
voluntary induction of anorexia as a performance-enhancing measure is so upset
about athletes infusing themselves with their own blood._

Did you even read the article? Sometimes it feels like when the headline is
simple like that people feel like they can skip the thing completely and just
post the most concise, one-up retort they can muster.

~~~
engrenage
Some people are just wired to post quick retorts. For the rest of us it takes
years of painstaking practice.

------
unono
The bigger question is - why does sport exist anymore? It comes from a time
before movies,books,tv,video games,facebook,pinterest.

Want to stay fit? Do some bodybuilding and some swimming.

Want to focus your mind tactically? Plan your app empire.

Hackers need to find creative ways to destroy the sport industry, just as PG
urges us to find creative ways to destroy Hollywood.

~~~
recursive
A lot of hackers play sports. Why would we try to destroy them?

Sports exist because some people find them fun. If you don't, don't worry.
They're purely optional.

~~~
kazagistar
Huge budgets at state universities are sunk into the traditional american
sport of handegg. Usually it is at a loss, but considered neccessary to draw
more students. I don't mind casual sports... its the bullshit of proffesional
sports that has a more direct negative inpact via decreased funding for
education.

~~~
recursive
Oh yes, I totally agree with that thought. I didn't consider that because I
don't spectate sports. I only play.

------
moron4hire
"We want sports to be fair and we take elaborate measures to make sure that no
one competitor has an advantage over any other."

That is incorrect. If sports were fair, then everyone would win. Sports are
specifically _not_ meant to be fair, the entire point of the competition is to
reveal which competitor is superior to the others.

The rules that we have against performance enhancing drugs are not about
having an advantage over other competitors. We don't have similar rules
governing how much weight training a particular athlete may do, or how clean
their diet may be. They are about establishing rules by which universal play
can be governed. The rules of the game define the game. If you play by a
different set of rules, you are playing a different game. If the Tour de
France did not have a rule against excessive[1] steroid use, then using
steroids would not be cheating. But, the Tour de France with steroids is not
the Tour de France, it's a different race entirely.

As a culture, we associate healthful living with physical fitness, and we
associate sports accomplishment with physical fitness, therefore we make the
huge leap of associating sports accomplishment with healthful living. Even
sans-drugs, sports accomplishment doesn't necessarily equal healthful living,
especially in the cases of ultra-marathons increasing risk of heart attack and
the head trauma of American football increasing the chance of dementia. But we
still make that association, so as a culture we tend to value sports that at
least pay lip service to maintaining the image of athletes as healthy. Though,
it's important to point at that we are inconsistent in that regard: certain
performance enhancing drugs are allowed in horse racing, and why shouldn't
pain killers be considered performance enhancing, if they allow the athlete to
perform better than they would without them?

Our culture shapes the rules we choose for our games, the rules define the
game. Cheating is not about "gaining an unfair advantage". It is an unfair
advantage for the New York Yankees to have the very best sports doctors in the
league, but it is within the rules of the game, therefor it is not cheating.
Much of sports strategy is about finding ways to find unconventional play
within the rules to give oneself an unfair advantage. Cheating is violating
the social contract of the game: "we've come here today to engage in a
competition and these are the rules by which we will evaluate the
competition".

[1] steroid use rules are often defined in terms of testosterone levels, and
the limits are frequently well, well above the levels expected for a healthy
male. The rule is thus, "no high testosterone", not actually "no steroids",
and it has become standard practice in many sports to try to cycle a steroid
usage to peak testosterone levels just below the limit. This takes
_significant_ personal experimentation and blood testing to see exactly how
the individual body reacts to the drugs and over what time frame. But don't
expect the difficulty to mean that people aren't doing it: they are. When you
see an athlete testing positive for steroids, it is not a question whether or
not they were using steroids or that others were also using it, it's a matter
of them not following their regimen properly.

~~~
streptomycin
_If sports were fair, then everyone would win._

The way he's using "fair" is more like "If sports were fair, then the guy who
works hardest would win." Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

~~~
moron4hire
The concept of greater effort only holds for amateur sports, and only at the
low levels of the sport. Professional athletes _all_ (well with the exception
of primadonna athletes) work as absolutely hard as they possibly can. If there
were a way to work harder to have a better chance victory, they would.

Sports are fair in the sense that everyone has the opportunity to do
everything they can within the rules. The rules are numerous enough and vague
enough (being that they are written by people in human languages) that there
are a variety of interpretations and paths through which one can play. No one
person can explore the entire depths of the rulebook.

But it is not fair in the sense that any one particular path through the
rulebook will be as effective as any other path.

~~~
streptomycin
_Professional athletes all (well with the exception of primadonna athletes)
work as absolutely hard as they possibly can. If there were a way to work
harder to have a better chance victory, they would._

That seems very obviously not true, unless by "primadonna athletes" you mean
"the vast majority of athletes". Athletes face opportunity costs just like the
rest of us, and different athletes come to different priorities. They aren't
robots.

For instance, stories about pro athletes coming to training camp out of shape
are very common. An article I recently read about Andre Miller comes to mind.
Andre Miller is a basketball player that most would say fits the archetype of
"wily veteran" rather than "primadonna". How does he train?
[http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15542/the-
secrets...](http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15542/the-secrets-of-
the-nbas-iron-man)

 _" I have no regimen," Miller says. After the season ends, so does Miller's
working out -- no weights, no cardio, no nothing. "I really don't pick up a
basketball." Eating right also falls by the wayside. "(My diet) isn't healthy
at all," Miller says. "Hamburgers, hot links on the Fourth of July, all that."
To control his weight, however, Miller uses old-fashioned discipline. "I
starve myself," he says. Seriously? "Yeah, I'm just starting to learn about
calories and all that."_

Yep, that's the guy who owns the active NBA record for consecutive games
played. And he competes against players like Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash who
are famous for their impeccable training regimens.

Another example... literally every female athlete who gets pregnant is hurting
her chances for victory. Yet tons of them do it.

~~~
Someone
_" every female athlete who gets pregnant is hurting her chances for victory.
Yet tons of them do it."_

That isn't clear-cut. There are rumours that getting pregnat was used as a
form of doping. See
[http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/doping.asp](http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/doping.asp),
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_doping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_doping)

~~~
streptomycin
Interesting, I'd never heard of that before. Then change it to "gets pregnant
and doesn't have an abortion" and it's definitely true, right?

------
kumarski
Yes.

Read about myostatin. It's a protein that inhibits muscle growth.

