An Interesting Take On The Olympics

[argive99]

The following link is one Objectivist blogger's take on the olympics. I agree with his discussion of it. I too find it hard to be inspired by world class athletes because I know that genetics plays such a crucial role. Without hitting the 'genetic lottery' there is no way that most people could ever achieve what these high end athletes achieve. This in not to attack achievement but to recognize that many sports have genetic prerequisites that place them outside the realm of possibility for those not 'gifted'. A Bill Gates or a Thomas Edison (or a Howard Roark) are better inspirations than Michael Jordon or Deon Sanders or Michael Johnson; as much as I loved watching these athletes.

http://www.bbrown.info/blogs/bblog/archive...d-hyperbole.cfm

[AndrewSternberg]

I agree that the achievements of Edison, Gates, and Roark are more inspiring, but any genetic physical prerequisite is far from any guarantee to athletic or Olympic success. Each of these physically gifted individuals has to take their gift and build from it in the same way Edison, Gates, and Roark build their success. The dedication and training is likely just as tedious and rewarding to them as it is to anyone else in a less physical pursuit.

[argive99]

From the blog post:

"I submit that the most inspiring achievement is one that I could have done if I had just applied myself more or worked harder. If an achievement has a genetic component, then it instantly decreases in value for me as a source of inspiration. The stories of Thomas Edison and Bill Gates are personally appealing because I know that I could be a successful inventor or businessman. The story of Michael Johnson or Nadia Comaneci are not because, try as hard as I humanly could, I could not run as fast as him or jump as well as him. My legs are not a sprinter's legs and my body is too inflexible and tall to perform gymnastics. The genetic predisposition towards athleticism represents an insurmountable hurdle in my case. The differences between these two sets of stories is significant.

There is some inspiration that one can take away from the examples given. The difference between Nadia Comaneci and her Romanian colleagues is that she wanted it more and trained much harder. But the lesson is as simple as those who work harder at something can accomplish more is present in the Edison and Gates examples without the genetic muddying. It's also a fairly trivial, obvious lesson. The instructions provided by an in-depth study of Edison and Gates's life, though, is not trivial and definitely not obvious. Therefore, the value of their inspiration is greater both in degree and kind. All inspiration is not created equal."

This is what I was getting at. I could be an investment banker like Milken, or an inventor like Edison, or an architect like Roark. I can never run a 4.0 fourty or a 4 minute mile (or less). These are things which while great to look at are not possible to all people but only those with the genetic predisposition. Therefore their inspirational value is less significant. The rest of the article goes on to correctly point out the mindless nationalism present in the modern Olympics and to offer an alternative in the X-games which the author argues is more in line with the Ancient Greek spirit. I found the post interesting, even though I love watching great athletes.

[Capitalism Forever]

I could be an investment banker like Milken, or an inventor like Edison, or an architect like Roark.

That's right. And even if I could be a professional athlete, I would prefer to be a banker or an inventor or an architect--or better still, what I am : a programmer! --because it involves the use of my mind.

[bbrown]

That's right. And even if I could be a professional athlete, I would prefer to be a banker or an inventor or an architect--or better still, what I am : a programmer! --because it involves the use of my mind.

I'll second that. I just couldn't figure out a way to suggest that either the Olympics or the X-Games were the exemplars of mental prowess. They are essentially physical showcases.

[Inspector]

Gentlemen, let's not swing too far and miss what is right; the mind-body dichotomy is false. I see this conversation quickly going in the direction of "the mind is all; reject the body."

That would be just as incorrect as the corallary you are rejecting.

There are no "achievements of the body." Those athletes had to use their minds to control their bodies in a superlative way. Don't downplay their mental efforts and achievements.

[bbrown]

Gentlemen, let's not swing too far and miss what is right; the mind-body dichotomy is false. I see this conversation quickly going in the direction of "the mind is all; reject the body."

That would be just as incorrect as the corallary you are rejecting.

There are no "achievements of the body." Those athletes had to use their minds to control their bodies in a superlative way. Don't downplay their mental efforts and achievements.

I knew that I would be misinterpreted that way. When did I, or anyone, say that athletes don't use their minds? I said that "They are essentially physical showcases" and I stand by that. There is certainly a mental component to any physical achievement--man is not a robot. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I suppose you would also agree that "there are no achievements of the mind." Does that even make any sense at all? Can you specify the physical component of Ayn Rand's discovery of her theory of concept formation? There is one, but it is mostly irrelevant.

[Inspector]

Sounds like you're in no danger of going the other way, after all. No need to get mad; it was a friendly reminder not to "go too far." Nothing more.

[AshRyan]

The following link is one Objectivist blogger's take on the olympics. I agree with his discussion of it. I too find it hard to be inspired by world class athletes because I know that genetics plays such a crucial role. Without hitting the 'genetic lottery' there is no way that most people could ever achieve what these high end athletes achieve. This in not to attack achievement but to recognize that many sports have genetic prerequisites that place them outside the realm of possibility for those not 'gifted'. A Bill Gates or a Thomas Edison (or a Howard Roark) are better inspirations than Michael Jordon or Deon Sanders or Michael Johnson; as much as I loved watching these athletes.

http://www.bbrown.info/blogs/bblog/archive...d-hyperbole.cfm

Of course intellectual achievements--such as, say, Atlas Shrugged--are more inspiring than "merely" physical achievements. You're not going to get much argument about that here. But that doesn't mean that physical achievements aren't inspiring. And regardless of whatever role genetics may play, that does not mean that it is simply a matter of a "genetic lottery," and someone simply "hits the jackpot" and that's it. These athletes train incredibly hard to be able to do what they do. That kind of training for this kind of competition also takes tremendous mental effort. They have to know what they are doing, and be able to perform under pressure--a largely mental skill.

Plus, they are constantly pushing the limits of the performance of the human body. New records are set at every Olympics. Do you think it's the case that the genetics of the competing athletes have just been getting steadily better somehow? Because your argument rests on the truth of that premise--but I for one am skeptical.

I love to watch the Olympics. I wish the procedures for judging were better, but even if the medals aren't always awarded to the right people, it's a pleasure to watch the athletes perform.

[Capitalism Forever]

There are no "achievements of the body." Those athletes had to use their minds to control their bodies in a superlative way.

They are men of outstandingly strong will, there is no doubt about that. But their jobs don't involve the use of their minds to solve problems. So they're using their minds in one specific way, but not in other ways--a bit "one-dimensional," if you pardon the expression.

I find computers much more interesting because there are so many different kinds of mental challenges you face and--if you're a good one--meet.

[Inspector]

They are men of outstandingly strong will, there is no doubt about that. But their jobs don't involve the use of their minds to solve problems. So they're using their minds in one specific way, but not in other ways--a bit "one-dimensional," if you pardon the expression.

I can agree with that. I'm not about to turn to them for intellectual advice!

[bbrown]

But that doesn't mean that physical achievements aren't inspiring.  And regardless of whatever role genetics may play, that does not mean that it is simply a matter of a "genetic lottery," and someone simply "hits the jackpot" and that's it.  These athletes train incredibly hard to be able to do what they do.  That kind of training for this kind of competition also takes tremendous mental effort.  They have to know what they are doing, and be able to perform under pressure--a largely mental skill.

Plus, they are constantly pushing the limits of the performance of the human body.  New records are set at every Olympics.  Do you think it's the case that the genetics of the competing athletes have just been getting steadily better somehow?  Because your argument rests on the truth of that premise--but I for one am skeptical. 

I love to watch the Olympics.  I wish the procedures for judging were better, but even if the medals aren't always awarded to the right people, it's a pleasure to watch the athletes perform.

I don't disagree that physical achievements aren't inspiring. In fact, I pointed out how inspiring the X Games were in that regard. What I especially like about the X Games is that it largely removes the genetic component from the picture. The competitors have a wide continuum of athletic skills--it doesn't take much athletic ability to do a trick on a motorcycle. It does, however, take a huge amount of will and focus with incredible consequences if you lack either.

As for new records at every Olympics, it's not a matter of genetics per se. What you have are relatively minute differences year to year. You never hear of an Olympic record being shattered by an order of magnitude any more--we're generally talking of milliseconds. Further, each year sees an influx of Olympic athletes who might have been too young previously to compete. The Olympics is by and large relegated to the young.

And I don't think anyone's disputing that the Olympics are fun to watch. So is the World's Strongest Man competition, but they're both unreachable for me. I'm fine with that since I know A is A.

[AshRyan]

I don't disagree that physical achievements aren't inspiring. In fact, I pointed out how inspiring the X Games were in that regard...

Well, I hadn't even read your previous post, and was responding to argive99's initial one. But now that you are addressing me directly, I have to say that I disagree with you as well. I don't understand the motivation behind some of these criticisms, especially since they are mostly wrong or pointless.

I still hold that the objection to the Olympics that it is largely a matter of genetics is completely overblown. To the extent that it's true, it completely drops the relevent context, and seems to be a complaint based on some kind of egalitarianism. So perhaps not everyone is physically capable of becoming an Olympic-caliber athlete. So what?

And this one about the Olympics being "relegated to the young" is even worse:

Further, each year sees an influx of Olympic athletes who might have been too young previously to compete. The Olympics is by and large relegated to the young.

Again, all I can really say is: SO WHAT???

If you don't personally get much out of the Olympics, fine--it's an optional value. But to actively denigrate the achievement of people who should in fact be admired is very questionable in my opinion.

[oldsalt]

Only someone who has never sought athletic expertise would say that it is mainly a physical activity.

If everyone is capable of being the inventor and businessman Edison was, the world would be full of Edisons. There is no more egalitarianism in intellectual pursuits than there is in athletic pursuits. Both require a devotion to focus, self-discipline, the acquisition of knowledge, hard work, the ambition to seek to be the best, and the love of life required to sustain all of the above.

Tell Lance Armstrong that all he's needed is to be "genetically" strong physically, and that his mind plays only a small part in his success.

Beware of overgeneralizing. Like everything else in life, some sports require more intellectual input than others. I've found many of the individual performances at the Olympics to be very inspiring. I admire those who demonstrate the self-discipline involved in years of mental focus and hard physical work, especially those who have done so from an early age.

[bbrown]

I still hold that the objection to the Olympics that it is largely a matter of genetics is completely overblown.  To the extent that it's true, it completely drops the relevent context, and seems to be a complaint based on some kind of egalitarianism.  So perhaps not everyone is physically capable of becoming an Olympic-caliber athlete.  So what? 

What good is inspiration? Why should one seek it out? I believe that inspiration is an excellent source of motivation. I would contend that there are two kinds of inspiration: direct and indirect. Direct motivation is where the inspiring story, person, or event is directly related to something in your life in which you lack motivation or need more: if I played basketball, Michael Jordan would be a source of inspiration on how to improve my game or keep at it. Indirect motivation would be where the relationship between the inspiring story, person, or event is not obvious: if I didn't play basketball, then Michael Jordan might inspire me to keep pursuing my goals.

Being incapable of becoming an Olympic-class athlete closes off the possibility of direct motivation. I later noted that the indirect motivation was negligble to me. My point was that *I* didn't find the Olympics very inspiring and that the collectivistic underpinnings of both the coverage (and perhaps the games themselves) lessened their value further.

And this one about the Olympics being "relegated to the young" is even worse:

Again, all I can really say is: SO WHAT???

If you don't personally get much out of the Olympics, fine--it's an optional value.  But to actively denigrate the achievement of people who should in fact be admired is very questionable in my opinion.

My point about youth was strictly a response to your question "Do you think it's the case that the genetics of the competing athletes have just been getting steadily better somehow?"

I'm going to guess that you didn't read my blog entry that precipitated the OP. I was commenting on Andrew Bernstein's panegyric on the Olympics. I do not deny their achievements nor do I argue that they're not fun to watch. If you love the Olympics, bully for you.

[Yes]

I agree that the achievements of Edison, Gates, and Roark are more inspiring, but any genetic physical prerequisite is far from any guarantee to athletic or Olympic success.  Each of these physically gifted individuals has to take their gift and build from it in the same way Edison, Gates, and Roark build their success.  The dedication and training is likely just as tedious and rewarding to them as it is to anyone else in a less physical pursuit.

But Howard Roark is a fictitious character!

I think Steve Jobs belongs in the names of the aforementioned (along with Gates and Edison).