

Why Athletes Are Geniuses - branden
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/16-the-brain-athletes-are-geniuses

======
oostevo
"Del Percio argues, is that the brains of athletes are more efficient, so they
produce the desired result with the help of fewer neurons. Del Percio’s
research suggests that the more efficient a brain, the better job it does in
sports. ... but even the most genetically well-endowed prodigy clearly needs
practice—-lots of it—-to develop the brain of an athlete. As soon as someone
starts to practice a new sport, his brain begins to change, and the changes
continue for years."

This is what physical education was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, it's
turned into, at best, an incompetent teacher with a whistle shouting at kids,
or, at worst, disappeared altogether. I think we, as a society, are missing
out on something pretty big.

~~~
jdminhbg
When was this golden age of phys ed? I'll admit that I don't have a ton of
knowledge of the history of gym class, but if depictions of phys ed in movies
or television are anything to go by, 'incompetent teacher with whistle' pretty
much describes it in its entirety.

~~~
oostevo
Sketerpot's pretty much right. I'm no actual PE historian (somehow I doubt
such a thing exists), but I've heard several times that what the article
describes is how it was supposed to work. It probably never did work that way,
though.

I'm really reaching here, but I'm pretty sure that idea goes back to Plato, if
not even earlier.

~~~
hugh3
Not quite as far back as Plato, but I was reading Seneca the other day who
whines that physical education in Imperial Rome ain't what it used to be:

 _Can we possibly look on this as a liberal accomplishment for the youth of
Rome, whom our ancestors trained to stand up straight and throw a javelin, to
toss the caber, and manage a horse, and handle weapons? They never used to
teach their children anything that could be learned in a reclining posture._

------
chaosmachine
_"Ruth the Superman

The tests revealed the fact that Ruth is 90 per cent efficient compared with a
human average of 60 per cent.

That his eyes are about 12 per cent faster than those of the average human
being.

That his ears function at least 10 per cent faster than those of the ordinary
man. That his nerves are steadier than those of 499 out of 500 persons.

That in attention and quickness of perception he rated one and a half times
above the human average.

That in intelligence, as demonstrated by the quickness and accuracy of
understanding, he is approximately 10 per cent above normal."_

Popular Science, 1921

[http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-
ba...](http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-babe-ruth-
greatest-home-run-hitter)

------
cj
I think athletes also have an easier time pushing themselves to their limits.
They are acclimated to exerting themselves to the point of physical
pain/extreme fatigue. The psychological process that makes this acceptable to
athletes may translate to other parts of their life, positively or negatively.

Just a theory, as I have no evidence besides my own experience.

~~~
khafra
Not just your theory. Read up on the marshmallow test--it turns out that
people with higher levels of self-control do better academically than people
with higher IQs.

------
ahi
The math by the commentator sucks, but this goal is still a masterpiece:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXA0PoEE6Y>

~~~
tyn
Are you sure he was targeting the goalpost? Maybe it was a failed cross that
just gone lucky. Happened to me, too.

~~~
ahi
while it is possible it was a bad cross, he's definitely capable of ridiculous
shots. Here's another one <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5XpXU8TBoo>

~~~
patrickk
Roberto Carlos' strategy was to hammer his shots as hard as possible and cross
his fingers as regards accuracy or a lucky deflection.

Another example, with one of the most hilarious pieces of commentary I've ever
heard:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW2d-QrnFgA>

An (unscientific) study was conducted by one of the UK Sunday newspapers a few
years back regarding footballers (soccer players) intellect. The conclusion
was that the reason some players are so gifted on the pitch is that they are
quite, ah, _dense_ off it. Reading some quotes from some famous players seemed
to back that theory up.

------
JohnnyBrown
the most interesting part is at the very tip of the inverted pyramid: "The
scientists also trained another group of people on the same game, but with a
twist. They put a battery on top of the head of each subject, sending a small
current through the surface of the brain toward a group of neurons in the
primary motor cortex. The electric stimulation allowed people to learn the
game better. By the end of five days of training, the battery-enhanced players
could move the cursor faster and make fewer errors than the control group."

This is the second time this week I've seen something about neuroscience
moving from correlation to causation. I can't remember where I saw the other
one but it had to do with people making different moral judgments when certain
brain regions were stimulated

~~~
jcl
I also found this to be the most interesting part of the article. I was
surprised that the current had a positive, localized effect, even though it
was being applied to the skin instead of the brain itself.

I think the article's speculation on doping athletes (and perhaps other
learners) with electrical stimulation is quite valid... The article links to
the research paper, which lists the exact device and method used, and it looks
to be cheap, widely available, unregulated, non-invasive, and undetectable. I
wonder if there are any long-term side effects?

------
nhebb
I think they are geniuses when their brains can calculate complex mechanics on
the fly. Think of a quarterback throwing the ball to a receiver when he is
running from left to right while the receiver is running down field on a post
route. And the defense is blocking his visibility. And the wind is blowing.
And it's been raining, making the ball slightly heavier. And the ball is
slippery, changing the coefficient of static friction for his grip.

That's an extreme case, but we kind of take it for granted when we simply call
this coordination. Coordination is thought of as a physical skill, not
necessarily a mental one. But it would be a pretty tough problem to fully
model with a pencil and paper.

------
WilliamLP
Can we just assume that developing the brain in way that makes it better for
golf or basketball has _any_ transferable value? Richard Feynman couldn't have
been like Lebron James, and vice versa, but can you really argue that perhaps
he would have been better off learning more sports rather than reading,
thinking, and tinkering with electronics?

~~~
branden
Who's making that argument?

~~~
orborde
The article seems to be making it implicitly, by calling athletes "geniuses".

------
mikecane
Genius? Or just highly-skilled?

~~~
joe24pack
pray tell what exactly is the difference

~~~
mikecane
Well, with sports it's a lot of repeating things to perfect them. This speeds
up response time. With, say, something intellectual, it's stretching the mind
-- so to speak -- to do entirely different things. Not slamming sports. Just
questioning applying the term "genius" here. Agile, yes. Expert, yes. But
genius?

~~~
cwp
Yes, genius. Learning to write a poem is a lot like learning to throw a ball.
In both cases, mastering a skill requires practice - whether you call it "a
lot of repeating things" or "stretching the mind." The fact that physical
skills also require physical capabilities (muscle strength, flexibility etc)
doesn't diminish the mental aspect of it.

~~~
Jach
"Learning to write a poem is a lot like learning to throw a ball. In both
cases, mastering a skill requires practice"

I don't disagree, but I think due to our evolutionary history one requires
significantly less practice than the other.

~~~
csytan
What leads you to this conclusion? I am not a natural athlete nor a gifted
writer, but I don't find one to be significantly less challenging than the
other.

~~~
Jach
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but it seems to me we've been running
around hunting for a lot longer than we've been sitting around writing (/
doing math / other mainly intellectual activity), and thus one is
significantly more natural than the other given our history. The human body
seems designed to throw spears / rocks / balls. The necessary mental faculties
for writing a poem seem more complicated than those needed for doing sports.
The proportion of good athletes to good writers.

I'd love to be corrected on this if the opposite is true, that becoming a good
athlete is just as difficult as or more difficult than becoming a good writer.
I'm just not seeing it.

~~~
csytan
Writing is just another form of communication. Be it grunting noises, speech,
or song, it has been in development for a very, very long time.

I won't comment on the difficulty of becoming a good athlete to that of being
a good writer because it really is like comparing apples to oranges. That
being said, becoming a good athlete can be incredibly tough both physically,
and mentally.

Take a relatively simple sport like running. You will find a huge variation in
the efficiency of joggers, even though it is a "natural" motion for the body.
This is not even taking into account training, or nutrition. In fact, there
are actually people who study the science of running:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrOgDCZ4GUo>

