Nature v. Nurture

In case you guys don't know, I am a huge fan of the authors of the Freakonomics book and New York Times Magazine column. They have a knack for looking at interesting data and understanding what it is telling us. In their most recent column, they look at a statistic that says a disproportionate number of elite soccer players were born in the first three months of the year, January, February, and March.

Although there could be any number of explanations for this, Dubner and Levitt say that it is due to the cutoff date for youth soccer leagues, which follows the calendar year. Age groups are determined by birth year, and kids born in the early part of the year will be a little bit more mature and physically developed than those born at the end of the year. The result is that coaches will more likely pick the players with early birthdays, mistaking maturity for talent and skill. In the end, these players will be given more chances to practice, compete and improve compared to players with later birthdays.

The theory they are supporting is nuture over nature. The authors cite studies that have shown that elite talents in any area develop with practice and hard work instead of some innate ability they are born with. They do admit in the column that there is some genetics as well - but their point is well made. The opportunities that people get to practice their skills will have a major impact on their skill level.

So what are the authors getting at? Well, for one, hard work is the only way to greatness and even if you don't show skill right away, skill can be developed. This sounds like a motivational poster for a fifth grade classroom, but it is relevant here because there is research to back up the claim. As adults, we should encourage kids to work hard and see how their talents develop, and not be too quick to jump on the bandwagon of a young superstar - mistaking talent for early maturity.