Can everyone reach 2k?

[Rayne]

It is pretty well known that your brain is much more flexible during adolescence. Think about people who are born blind or deaf vs those who haven't but turn so later in life. Their brain structures responsible for this modality are configured quite differently. This is because your brain connections configure getting sensory/cognitive experience/stimulation. It is generally accepted that this ability to make these new connections degrades when you age. This is presumable the reason elderly have such difficulty learning to use modern devices, they just don't have the framework to handle it.

While it is not my intention to debunk your post (because some things are very true that can’t be disproven as they’ve been proven over), there arises some things, namely a question here with this very paragraph. It comes as someone who was very passionate and used to study neuroscience a bit years ago. From how it is written at least, it seems to conflict with things I know about the subject.


In what way are you saying/implying that the brain is more flexible during teenage years?

I ask that because in topics regarding talent that I have come across over years, there is always some variation of it. There is truth to it, but it is more taken out of context when it comes to talent imo, and how it is that thing one can always point at to justify things. It’s not completely accurate, but not off either. The reason is neuroplasticity, which is a main core (if not THE core) of neuroscience. It goes that the brain is plastic, and people and experiences are shaping them. The brain will always be growing and changing (infact some parts can shrink). This applies not only to teenagers, but to the elderly.


People thought for a long time (some people to this day do that don’t know basic neuroscience) that the brain stops growing and changing somewhere in the mid to late twenties and that everything is “set”, but that’s been disproven from this. Old dogs actually can learn new tricks, a lot just refuse not to. Some areas are also highly susceptible to change no matter age for the most part, namely ones with memory, emotion, and I believe imagination. People have a lot of time to do things well imo.

I don’t know when a drastic turning point for the plasticity would be, but your graph looks about accurate when it comes to 50s and 60s (from also speaking with old people and how things are ‘not the same’). I believe it also depends how active one keeps their brain much like how some older people are fit because they’ve exercised for a lot of life. If the brain isn’t being used, I.e. watching TV or twitch as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating things, probably more towards the 50s.


Also for old people, I thought there was a female Indian handgun marksman who recently passed in her 80s. She didn’t try to become a marksman until her late 60s or 70s if I am not mistaken, and won countless tournaments ahead of youngsters. Says something, a true hero honestly.

This connectivity seems to have some relation specific to spatial attention/memory, but I don't think this was examined closely in this study. My hypothesis is that pros are much better at switching attention (switching attention actually costs energy, people with autism for example fare much worse with this) and keeping track of multiple scenarios in their short term memory.

I’d say agree you are completely right here. I also believe the more accurate one is what neuroscientists call working memory. It’s probably more than just that too. I recently learned there are more kinds of memories than I thought from a friend who used to study cognitive psychology. There is autobiographical memory, conceptual memory, sensory memory, and forgot the few others he mentioned. Studying the brain/mind gives me a migraine honestly...

 

[Rayne]

Had time to find the woman I mentioned before. Her name is Chandro Tomar:

Chandro Tomar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

30 National Championships, started shooting in her 60s. Quite a woman.

 

[Tiekel]

While it is not my intention to debunk your post (because some things are very true that can’t be disproven as they’ve been proven over), there arises some things, namely a question here with this very paragraph. It comes as someone who was very passionate and used to study neuroscience a bit years ago. From how it is written at least, it seems to conflict with things I know about the subject.


In what way are you saying/implying that the brain is more flexible during teenage years?

I ask that because in topics regarding talent that I have come across over years, there is always some variation of it. There is truth to it, but it is more taken out of context when it comes to talent imo, and how it is that thing one can always point at to justify things. It’s not completely accurate, but not off either. The reason is neuroplasticity, which is a main core (if not THE core) of neuroscience. It goes that the brain is plastic, and people and experiences are shaping them. The brain will always be growing and changing (infact some parts can shrink). This applies not only to teenagers, but to the elderly.


People thought for a long time (some people to this day do that don’t know basic neuroscience) that the brain stops growing and changing somewhere in the mid to late twenties and that everything is “set”, but that’s been disproven from this. Old dogs actually can learn new tricks, a lot just refuse not to. Some areas are also highly susceptible to change no matter age for the most part, namely ones with memory, emotion, and I believe imagination. People have a lot of time to do things well imo.

I don’t know when a drastic turning point for the plasticity would be, but your graph looks about accurate when it comes to 50s and 60s (from also speaking with old people and how things are ‘not the same’). I believe it also depends how active one keeps their brain much like how some older people are fit because they’ve exercised for a lot of life. If the brain isn’t being used, I.e. watching TV or twitch as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating things, probably more towards the 50s.


Also for old people, I thought there was a female Indian handgun marksman who recently passed in her 80s. She didn’t try to become a marksman until her late 60s or 70s if I am not mistaken, and won countless tournaments ahead of youngsters. Says something, a true hero honestly.



I’d say agree you are completely right here. I also believe the more accurate one is what neuroscientists call working memory. It’s probably more than just that too. I recently learned there are more kinds of memories than I thought from a friend who used to study cognitive psychology. There is autobiographical memory, conceptual memory, sensory memory, and forgot the few others he mentioned. Studying the brain/mind gives me a migraine honestly...

I can't refute or confirm definitively what you are saying either, since I didn't continue in it after studying either, and it's a very broad field. I was thought that early childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for development, though it was already known it continues well into your 20s. I do think there are different types of plasticity, and it really depends on what topic you specialize in how much you know about each type.
For example it would be interesting to know about the woman in your example, did she use mostly existing networks for familiar subjects, or did she form something entirely new?
At some point it becomes a matter of semantics I think. Then you can find all sorts of ways to classify such a thing as memory, if you find a fitting task for it. But you have to be aware that there is seldom one process engaged in such cognitive/behavioral tasks. So there can be considerable overlap between each different type of task.

 

[Rayne]

I can't refute or confirm definitively what you are saying either, since I didn't continue in it after studying either, and it's a very broad field. I was thought that early childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for development, though it was already known it continues well into your 20s. I do think there are different types of plasticity, and it really depends on what topic you specialize in how much you know about each type.
For example it would be interesting to know about the woman in your example, did she use mostly existing networks for familiar subjects, or did she form something entirely new?
At some point it becomes a matter of semantics I think. Then you can find all sorts of ways to classify such a thing as memory, if you find a fitting task for it. But you have to be aware that there is seldom one process engaged in such cognitive/behavioral tasks. So there can be considerable overlap between each different type of task.

Oh, you did study it too? Off-topic question, can I ask why? Me personally, it got too creepy even though it forever changed me in a good way. Couldn’t handle it unfortunately.

There are different types of plasticity, neuroplasticity is just the general one referring to the brain as a whole. A specific plasticity for instance, would be synaptic plasticity which, to my understanding at least, is involved in learning things and activities. Like say practicing/developing micro with aoe would be one thing. The more it is done in repetition, the more connections can form if they were never there and become stronger.


Early childhood and teenage years are indeed crucial to a degree that can’t be debated. While I don’t have extensive knowledge on that, just from ‘neurotheory’, I suppose it all relates to cultivation and brain’s plasticity.

Like how you mentioned an old person is stuck in their ways and can’t learn something new. Part true, but also part untrue because of the brain’s general flexibility (which never truly goes away). That’s the extreme part but also more an unwillingness or disbelief in change. A more simple example is this which sums up both points: A teenager can ‘cultivate’ stubbornness since they were a kid (let’s say someone who is 16 and been stubborn since they were 7) but will have an easier time snapping out of being stubborn if they try. That’s as opposed to someone who is 70 and has been generally stubborn since they were 7 as well. But it’s not impossible to be reversed even for them. More that those connections can become so strong, it is very difficult to weaken them with ‘inacitivty’. Same goes for learning something new even for people older. How far they go is where my understanding of the area ends.

As for Chandro Tomar, if you want to believe wikipedia (which does give a citation), there’s this:

In 2021, Tomar told The New York Times that her strength and agility is from "All the household chores I used to do from a young age, like grinding the wheat by hand, milking the cows, cutting the grass, It’s important to stay active. Your body might grow old, but keep your mind sharp."

I guess if you play around with some basic neurotheory, it can be said the reason why she partly became a beast has to do with these chores. They all involve her hands, handling a pistol requires hands. Some things are indeed transferable. That I can sort of understand theoretically speaking, but what I don’t quite know are the other things, like concentration which is surely involved with being a world class marksman. Unless those tasks require a good degree of it too, I don’t know where she would’ve acquired that. It’s the only thing that could fit the puzzle. Maybe grinding wheat by hand requires a large degree of concentration, but I have never done it so I don’t know. Even if that is tacked on theoretically too though, it must be insanely difficult to become literally one of the best old marksmen in the world. Big difference in doing chores and being the best. New things must be learned without question. Can’t say anymore otherwise, that’s where my grasp of things end.

 

[klavskisLV]

I read 2 pages, so if i'm repeating something feel free to point it out.

First if we have this discussion we should try to define what talent is, or if not define, then at least see what is under that word.

In scientific literature the word talent is discussed in various contexts and still remains not that clear, so the stuff I write here might be different from stuff you might find on the internet.

We can look at talent as something that is part genetically determined, something that is already there at birth, then this "talent" interacts with environment, so we have something like good Socioeconomic status or poor one, opportunities to develop yourself vs no opportunity to develop yourself etc.
Then we can also look at something like personality traits, IQ, other cognitive components (basically how our neurons in the brain communicate with eachother) which are partly genetic as well, so we already have various traits that are genetic and impact our lives, and in this context, us reaching 2k or more.

Then we can look at learned behaviours: Here we can talk about various stuff like
-Coping skills (how we cope with loss, with being stuck in various elos etc, how we grew up, our early childhood, school life etc.)
-time planning, improving, self reflection etc.
-Our overall mental health, sleep hygiene, physical activities, good nutrition
-Motivation, interest in the thing we are doing

All these factors play a role in us reaching 2k.

Talent was looked at something crazy determined at birth/genetic etc. back in the 90's and such.
Nowadays it is more looked at as a part of the big picture
So lets say to be the TOP TOP TOP of something it would take around 80-90% hard work/dedication etc. and around 10-20% "talent", so i'd say getting 2k would be way more doable for most, but getting like 2k2-2k4 that is where this 10-20% could play a role.

 

[IYIyTh]

Eh, most people here tend to over-estimate their own abilities.

"You can be anything you want to be," is a fairy tale we're told from birth. It's a lie.

Some folks are simply skill capped or have physical limitations (ie: multi-tasking, mouse movement, eyesight.) Some are bored by the mechanical understanding that is required to be good at the game (X on Y res for Z units out of W Prod buildings)

 

[Tiekel]

Oh, you did study it too? Off-topic question, can I ask why? Me personally, it got too creepy even though it forever changed me in a good way. Couldn’t handle it unfortunately.

If you are talking about dissecting rats/brains, I can see your point, I think doing that was the most pointless activity, since they already had preserved slices you can examine under the microscope. And there are so many non-invasive areas of study.
I guess it was just such a big area I didn't know anything about, and I always liked biology, so I was very curious about it. Still wished somewhere I continued in that area though.

There are different types of plasticity, neuroplasticity is just the general one referring to the brain as a whole. A specific plasticity for instance, would be synaptic plasticity which, to my understanding at least, is involved in learning things and activities. Like say practicing/developing micro with aoe would be one thing. The more it is done in repetition, the more connections can form if they were never there and become stronger.


Early childhood and teenage years are indeed crucial to a degree that can’t be debated. While I don’t have extensive knowledge on that, just from ‘neurotheory’, I suppose it all relates to cultivation and brain’s plasticity.

Like how you mentioned an old person is stuck in their ways and can’t learn something new. Part true, but also part untrue because of the brain’s general flexibility (which never truly goes away). That’s the extreme part but also more an unwillingness or disbelief in change. A more simple example is this which sums up both points: A teenager can ‘cultivate’ stubbornness since they were a kid (let’s say someone who is 16 and been stubborn since they were 7) but will have an easier time snapping out of being stubborn if they try. That’s as opposed to someone who is 70 and has been generally stubborn since they were 7 as well. But it’s not impossible to be reversed even for them. More that those connections can become so strong, it is very difficult to weaken them with ‘inacitivty’. Same goes for learning something new even for people older. How far they go is where my understanding of the area ends.

Well, it was my belief that someone who gets into something at a young age would have an edge over a person that didn't do so, if we are talking about a very competitive scene. but such an implication wouldn't mean the other person can't learn.

As for Chandro Tomar, if you want to believe wikipedia (which does give a citation), there’s this:



I guess if you play around with some basic neurotheory, it can be said the reason why she partly became a beast has to do with these chores. They all involve her hands, handling a pistol requires hands. Some things are indeed transferable. That I can sort of understand theoretically speaking, but what I don’t quite know are the other things, like concentration which is surely involved with being a world class marksman. Unless those tasks require a good degree of it too, I don’t know where she would’ve acquired that. It’s the only thing that could fit the puzzle. Maybe grinding wheat by hand requires a large degree of concentration, but I have never done it so I don’t know. Even if that is tacked on theoretically too though, it must be insanely difficult to become literally one of the best old marksmen in the world. Big difference in doing chores and being the best. New things must be learned without question. Can’t say anymore otherwise, that’s where my grasp of things end.

It's just speculating of course, but it yes sounds like she was known with natural scenes, laws of gravity etc, did a lot of work that requires good eye hand coordination, may have been very useful.
I don't know of course how competive it is, I mean a similar thing can be said about aoe2, scene is relatively small.

 

[Degaussed]

Yes, you just need to pay Vivi the appropriate amount.

 

[Rayne]

If you are talking about dissecting rats/brains, I can see your point, I think doing that was the most pointless activity, since they already had preserved slices you can examine under the microscope. And there are so many non-invasive areas of study.
I guess it was just such a big area I didn't know anything about, and I always liked biology, so I was very curious about it. Still wished somewhere I continued in that area though.


Well, it was my belief that someone who gets into something at a young age would have an edge over a person that didn't do so, if we are talking about a very competitive scene. but such an implication wouldn't mean the other person can't learn.

Funny, feel the same way. Wish is the exact word for me too btw.


I don’t entirely disagree a person that starts something as a kid/teenager will have an edge as opposed to someone that starts, let’s say something in their 20s or 30s. The only main advantage I think they have is one of time. And perhaps less biases/more stubborn to accept things (stubbornness could go both ways). I’d like to say an advantage someone outside of their teens has is generally more intelligence/life experience, which accounts for a lot imo. The drawback is less time if they have obligations, which is a big loss.

I wonder what would happen should many people in their 30s drop everything in life to pursue something with the intent of mastery. It’s always kids you hear about becoming good at things perhaps more because they can invest a gigantic amount of time, and pretty much never anyone over 20 or 30 in certain fields with exception of like running businesses as an example which could account for something (know of one guy, Duncan Bannatyne, who didn’t have a bank account until 30 and now has 9 figure networth supposedly | others similar). Wonder how many things it could stretch across.


There’s also a thing I mentioned earlier, paradigm shifting. I didn’t know it was a term until last month or so. It was only from speaking to a friend about my experiences climbing rating ladder in different games, who said, “Oh, that’s called a paradigm shift.” It’s all about changing things (sometimes a big change) when something doesn’t work anymore or is not enough. As far as I understand it, it can include a way of thinking, assumptions, methodology, or even a way of practice. A core way of operating, basically.

I think most things if not everything in life runs on some sort of a core. There may be multiple cores or even “sub-cores” or outer cores if that makes sense. Just necessary components. People operate on cores too.

So in order to get ‘a lot’ better, I think it is all about finding the right “view”, or core. A way to see and approach things. I also think that some views only get you so far. What works at say 1300, obviously won’t work at 1500 or maybe even 1400. What’s required to advance is something different, maybe even both small and big changes. Nothing complicated or supernatural. It’s more that imo, not because someone may not be intelligent or “talented” enough or too old. All about flexibility and truly understanding everything. People can be their worse enemies when it comes to those things imo.


There was something I came across too which is simpler and a tl;dr I suppose. It was, “To improve is to change, to become perfect is to change often.” Even though perfection is overused, it makes the point simpler. I think if someone wants to become better at anything, they have to go through multiple paradigm shifts. People just allow themselves to interfere with the process at some point (I think usually when intimidated or the level is “too high” to break). Never mind age too much unless someone is really old. Maybe kids or teenagers are more flexible with this?

 

[Tiekel]

Funny, feel the same way. Wish is the exact word for me too btw.


I don’t entirely disagree a person that starts something as a kid/teenager will have an edge as opposed to someone that starts, let’s say something in their 20s or 30s. The only main advantage I think they have is one of time. And perhaps less biases/more stubborn to accept things (stubbornness could go both ways). I’d like to say an advantage someone outside of their teens has is generally more intelligence/life experience, which accounts for a lot imo. The drawback is less time if they have obligations, which is a big loss.

I wonder what would happen should many people in their 30s drop everything in life to pursue something with the intent of mastery. It’s always kids you hear about becoming good at things perhaps more because they can invest a gigantic amount of time, and pretty much never anyone over 20 or 30 in certain fields with exception of like running businesses as an example which could account for something (know of one guy, Duncan Bannatyne, who didn’t have a bank account until 30 and now has 9 figure networth supposedly | others similar). Wonder how many things it could stretch across.


There’s also a thing I mentioned earlier, paradigm shifting. I didn’t know it was a term until last month or so. It was only from speaking to a friend about my experiences climbing rating ladder in different games, who said, “Oh, that’s called a paradigm shift.” It’s all about changing things (sometimes a big change) when something doesn’t work anymore or is not enough. As far as I understand it, it can include a way of thinking, assumptions, methodology, or even a way of practice. A core way of operating, basically.

I think most things if not everything in life runs on some sort of a core. There may be multiple cores or even “sub-cores” or outer cores if that makes sense. Just necessary components. People operate on cores too.

So in order to get ‘a lot’ better, I think it is all about finding the right “view”, or core. A way to see and approach things. I also think that some views only get you so far. What works at say 1300, obviously won’t work at 1500 or maybe even 1400. What’s required to advance is something different, maybe even both small and big changes. Nothing complicated or supernatural. It’s more that imo, not because someone may not be intelligent or “talented” enough or too old. All about flexibility and truly understanding everything. People can be their worse enemies when it comes to those things imo.


There was something I came across too which is simpler and a tl;dr I suppose. It was, “To improve is to change, to become perfect is to change often.” Even though perfection is overused, it makes the point simpler. I think if someone wants to become better at anything, they have to go through multiple paradigm shifts. People just allow themselves to interfere with the process at some point (I think usually when intimidated or the level is “too high” to break). Never mind age too much unless someone is really old. Maybe kids or teenagers are more flexible with this?

I feel like this is kind of a different topic which I wanted to reply on, I actually started finding and reading some papers on the previous topic. But I guess I can only say finding your motivations is a good thing, though I suck at that personally.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846084/pdf/nihms157389.pdf This seems like a good review, but it only touches on some examples of auditory and visual processing, and misses those having to do with higher order processing. But the gist is that 'sensitive' periods do exist, and you need that experience to build on later in life for development of higher order processing. You can compare it to a computational neural network maybe. It is much easier to freeze the lower layers and retrain the higher ones than it is to retrain the lower ones. This review is from 2011 so there should be something more recent and more extensive on the topic. And there are actually a lot of topics on videogaming nowadays, but not everything as high quality or useful. Maybe it's a fad

Also I guess this isn't a neuroscience forum lol.

 

[klavskisLV]

I feel like this is kind of a different topic which I wanted to reply on, I actually started finding and reading some papers on the previous topic. But I guess I can only say finding your motivations is a good thing, though I suck at that personally.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846084/pdf/nihms157389.pdf This seems like a good review, but it only touches on some examples of auditory and visual processing, and misses those having to do with higher order processing. But the gist is that 'sensitive' periods do exist, and you need that experience to build on later in life for development of higher order processing. You can compare it to a computational neural network maybe. It is much easier to freeze the lower layers and retrain the higher ones than it is to retrain the lower ones. This review is from 2011 so there should be something more recent and more extensive on the topic. And there are actually a lot of topics on videogaming nowadays, but not everything as high quality or useful. Maybe it's a fad

Also I guess this isn't a neuroscience forum lol.

It is always neuroscience forum, neuroscience big POG

 

[Rayne]

I feel like this is kind of a different topic which I wanted to reply on, I actually started finding and reading some papers on the previous topic. But I guess I can only say finding your motivations is a good thing, though I suck at that personally.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846084/pdf/nihms157389.pdf This seems like a good review, but it only touches on some examples of auditory and visual processing, and misses those having to do with higher order processing. But the gist is that 'sensitive' periods do exist, and you need that experience to build on later in life for development of higher order processing. You can compare it to a computational neural network maybe. It is much easier to freeze the lower layers and retrain the higher ones than it is to retrain the lower ones. This review is from 2011 so there should be something more recent and more extensive on the topic. And there are actually a lot of topics on videogaming nowadays, but not everything as high quality or useful. Maybe it's a fad

Also I guess this isn't a neuroscience forum lol.

Heh, my bad for dragging neurology into this. An old and unfortunately somewhat brief hobby that I wish I could return to. Was just enjoying the convo with you honestly.

I have come across the language thing before. Even heard talks from someone that learned a second or third language later on, and compared to their native language their words were: “I wrestle with it word for word.” Can’t say anything about that tbh, never spoken another. I just wonder about people who are fluent in multiple languages. Tolkien knew over a dozen, but he was trained in Latin early in life I heard. Ah well 11.


One thing about the sensitive periods though. “The role of environment and inputs to the brain may therefore been seen as critical in the bias of network formation during early life.” And: “It is likely that changes in experience have a greater impact on an untrained young network compared to the same experience on an older trained network.”

Is this some blank slate theory or something? Easier to imprint where there’s nothing or not much at all, than where something exists and to be altered or overwritten? This is only applying to languages though right? It’s different with other things? Like regarding plasticity, some areas are supposed to be more sensitive than others. Ones regarding languages are less the older you get?


Btw, not sure if you want to continue talking about this or not with me. We can drop it if you want 11. Sometimes I can talk too much.

 

[klavskisLV]

Heh, my bad for dragging neurology into this. An old and unfortunately somewhat brief hobby that I wish I could return to. Was just enjoying the convo with you honestly.

I have come across the language thing before. Even heard talks from someone that learned a second or third language later on, and compared to their native language their words were: “I wrestle with it word for word.” Can’t say anything about that tbh, never spoken another. I just wonder about people who are fluent in multiple languages. Tolkien knew over a dozen, but he was trained in Latin early in life I heard. Ah well 11.


One thing about the sensitive periods though. “The role of environment and inputs to the brain may therefore been seen as critical in the bias of network formation during early life.” And: “It is likely that changes in experience have a greater impact on an untrained young network compared to the same experience on an older trained network.”

Is this some blank slate theory or something? Easier to imprint where there’s nothing or not much at all, than where something exists and to be altered or overwritten? This is only applying to languages though right? It’s different with other things? Like regarding plasticity, some areas are supposed to be more sensitive than others. Ones regarding languages are less the older you get?


Btw, not sure if you want to continue talking about this or not with me. We can drop it if you want 11. Sometimes I can talk too much.

Might be competely out of context, but it is quite clear that the impact on younger brains is way bigger than on older brains in terms of plasticity and (not sure if this was the right term) but "synaptogenesis" Basically early on in first years the synapses of brain develop for infants and various connections between neurons are made, a lot of those are from experience and environment.
So the environment and experiences matter way more at earlier age, I THINK (i might forgotten) but there was another synaptogenesis later at life i think around 20year old so that also matters, but not as much.

And this applies to most stuff not only language, motor skills as well, various patterns etc.

That is mostly why its so HARD to actually learn new stuff when you are like 30-50 year old, your brain is just way less plastic and requires way more time/resources, but it is still doable of course.

 

[Rayne]

Might be competely out of context, but it is quite clear that the impact on younger brains is way bigger than on older brains in terms of plasticity and (not sure if this was the right term) but "synaptogenesis" Basically early on in first years the synapses of brain develop for infants and various connections between neurons are made, a lot of those are from experience and environment.
So the environment and experiences matter way more at earlier age, I THINK (i might forgotten) but there was another synaptogenesis later at life i think around 20year old so that also matters, but not as much.

And this applies to most stuff not only language, motor skills as well, various patterns etc.

That is mostly why its so HARD to actually learn new stuff when you are like 30-50 year old, your brain is just way less plastic and requires way more time/resources, but it is still doable of course.

I can see synaptogenesis being the term considering there is neurogenesis. I can see what you mean about it too. Frankly, that’s where I started going on TMI overload and started getting turned off from the science (and left it).

This is where I start getting confused though regarding neuroscience, most discussions on talent, and then personal experience with things.


So, there is someone who just turned 70 that I have been teaching chess to since they were 69 ([twitch 69 kek jokes here]). They have a goal in chess which will basically be putting them in the 90th percentile. So far in the past year, the rating has jumped a couple hundred points and the play has changed so drastically since progress began. There have been “slow spurts” but the learning is there once there’s a connection “felt”... it is so weird. Granted their goal isn’t 2k, but considering their age it is ambitious (don’t think they would want me to say, so refraining from).

Then there is myself if I can use myself as an example. I started chess at 26, started at 1000 or so, and in my thirties am over 2200 with it (my rating went up by 150 pts in last year and don’t play a lot like before). Not my intention to brag, just where I get confused. Apparently, this sort of thing isn’t supposed to really happen and there’s nothing special about me. Still trying to go up in rating too btw. But it was always what I heard: you have to start chess as a kid or you can’t get good at it.

Bottom line, very confused with talent on the whole and even neuroscience tying into it with these things. And then there’s Chandro Tomar who was a beast...

 

[Tiekel]

Heh, my bad for dragging neurology into this. An old and unfortunately somewhat brief hobby that I wish I could return to. Was just enjoying the convo with you honestly.

I have come across the language thing before. Even heard talks from someone that learned a second or third language later on, and compared to their native language their words were: “I wrestle with it word for word.” Can’t say anything about that tbh, never spoken another. I just wonder about people who are fluent in multiple languages. Tolkien knew over a dozen, but he was trained in Latin early in life I heard. Ah well 11.


One thing about the sensitive periods though. “The role of environment and inputs to the brain may therefore been seen as critical in the bias of network formation during early life.” And: “It is likely that changes in experience have a greater impact on an untrained young network compared to the same experience on an older trained network.”

Is this some blank slate theory or something? Easier to imprint where there’s nothing or not much at all, than where something exists and to be altered or overwritten? This is only applying to languages though right? It’s different with other things? Like regarding plasticity, some areas are supposed to be more sensitive than others. Ones regarding languages are less the older you get?


Btw, not sure if you want to continue talking about this or not with me. We can drop it if you want 11. Sometimes I can talk too much.

I think languages are particularly well studied because there seems to be a big debate about the acquisition of second languages and age. But you'd think the same principles should hold up across different sensory/motor domains.
You also have to take into consideration the process of synaptic pruning. This takes place untill well into your twenties. So your brain starts out with an overabundance of connections, a lot of which die off. It is thought that a system learning this way is much more robust than one without the overabundance. But that is just one of many theories/hypotheses, since apparently the function of pruning is not yet well understood even today. (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/28/16096)
And yeah I don't mind, but giving a satisfactory response requires reading up lol.

 

[klavskisLV]

I can see synaptogenesis being the term considering there is neurogenesis. I can see what you mean about it too. Frankly, that’s where I started going on TMI overload and started getting turned off from the science (and left it).

This is where I start getting confused though regarding neuroscience, most discussions on talent, and then personal experience with things.


So, there is someone who just turned 70 that I have been teaching chess to since they were 69 ([twitch 69 kek jokes here]). They have a goal in chess which will basically be putting them in the 90th percentile. So far in the past year, the rating has jumped a couple hundred points and the play has changed so drastically since progress began. There have been “slow spurts” but the learning is there once there’s a connection “felt”... it is so weird. Granted their goal isn’t 2k, but considering their age it is ambitious (don’t think they would want me to say, so refraining from).

Then there is myself if I can use myself as an example. I started chess at 26, started at 1000 or so, and in my thirties am over 2200 with it (my rating went up by 150 pts in last year and don’t play a lot like before). Not my intention to brag, just where I get confused. Apparently, this sort of thing isn’t supposed to really happen and there’s nothing special about me. Still trying to go up in rating too btw. But it was always what I heard: you have to start chess as a kid or you can’t get good at it.

Bottom line, very confused with talent on the whole and even neuroscience tying into it with these things. And then there’s Chandro Tomar who was a beast...

Tiekel wrote, synaptic pruning, thats the one i meant, and what he said about it, pretty much that, Matthew Walker gives a good description about it in his book "Why we sleep"
I mix these things up as i study in Latvian, my bad.
I'll call it as one word "Neuroscience"- the whole field is wide and pretty complex so i can imagine that too much info can mess it up.
I'd say that turning 70 isn't like THAT big of a deal. Like you got many scientists/professors who are still doing stuff at like 80-100 year old. Of course not everyone can do that but we have quite a lot of data on the whole "lifestyle+cognitive workload>slows down cognitive decline etc. etc." so your example might as well be a person who has been quite active cognitively and hasn't met that big of a decline. Of course I doubt that at that age you can hit like super super high elo, but lets say in something like chess getting better, why not? You know, again might be the smaller % of people who can do it, but many can.

On your own example: Might just be you are above average as well, people like that exsist, you are interested in neuroscience, play chess, I mean not everyone do that:D

The way i look at it is: If you are above avg, you can get quite far, but to be liereyy in aoe2 that is way way above and can be called "talent"

 

[Rayne]

I think languages are particularly well studied because there seems to be a big debate about the acquisition of second languages and age. But you'd think the same principles should hold up across different sensory/motor domains.
You also have to take into consideration the process of synaptic pruning. This takes place untill well into your twenties. So your brain starts out with an overabundance of connections, a lot of which die off. It is thought that a system learning this way is much more robust than one without the overabundance. But that is just one of many theories/hypotheses, since apparently the function of pruning is not yet well understood even today. (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/28/16096)
And yeah I don't mind, but giving a satisfactory response requires reading up lol.

No need to go all-out on giving response tbh, unless you really want to. Just going by what I remember and understand about the brain.


Didn’t know this is how it happened actually. I had heard connections could ‘disappear entirely’ but I thought that was pure theory.

So from what I understand about this, it’s literally use it or lose it. If certain things aren’t regularly being done, the weaker connections relay a message to the brain: “Ok, so let’s get rid of this. We don’t need it anymore since it is not being used.” I can see how that this pruning would be an issue.

Klavs did mention synaptogenesis which is a thing? It is to my understanding new connections can form as well. This could happen to connections that once were there but pruned right (they can form anew)? Like how neurogenesis is a thing when it was thought the brain had a set amount of neurons. So whenever some were lost, they were gone for good. New neurons arise from stem cells in the brain if I have that right. It’s just a slow process. The brain seems to always try to accomodate things, as best as it can.


Edit:

I think languages are particularly well studied because there seems to be a big debate about the acquisition of second languages and age. But you'd think the same principles should hold up across different sensory/motor domains.

Forgot to respond to this. If by same principles should apply to other areas, if you’re referring to sensitivity or lack thereof to other areas, that’s where I am not sure it completely applies. The hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal lobes for instance are among the most flexible (or sensitive to change) areas in the brain. I believe all of those are related to learning somewhere. I’m sure there are others I don’t know. And if conversely there’s areas that are the least sensitive (in terms of change), probably any area involving addiction I’d imagine.

 

[Rayne]

Tiekel wrote, synaptic pruning, thats the one i meant, and what he said about it, pretty much that, Matthew Walker gives a good description about it in his book "Why we sleep"
I mix these things up as i study in Latvian, my bad.
I'll call it as one word "Neuroscience"- the whole field is wide and pretty complex so i can imagine that too much info can mess it up.
I'd say that turning 70 isn't like THAT big of a deal. Like you got many scientists/professors who are still doing stuff at like 80-100 year old. Of course not everyone can do that but we have quite a lot of data on the whole "lifestyle+cognitive workload>slows down cognitive decline etc. etc." so your example might as well be a person who has been quite active cognitively and hasn't met that big of a decline. Of course I doubt that at that age you can hit like super super high elo, but lets say in something like chess getting better, why not? You know, again might be the smaller % of people who can do it, but many can.

On your own example: Might just be you are above average as well, people like that exsist, you are interested in neuroscience, play chess, I mean not everyone do that:D

The way i look at it is: If you are above avg, you can get quite far, but to be liereyy in aoe2 that is way way above and can be called "talent"

About the pruning: see my response to Tiekel.

Not 70 myself, but it is a huge deal it seems even though, as you correctly assume, that they kept their mind in shape with puzzle books for 30 years give or take some. Yet I remember a big frustration where I was teaching one day and they said, “You know, you just don’t seem to understand how old I am. It’s not that simple for me.” Was a bit of a yikes that I messed up somewhere 11, but even for them, it’s hard. Actually fascinating though to watch them learn the game.


For me, I dunno really. Me having a past love for neuroscience and playing chess, it doesn’t feel like it means anything. Everything I’ve done, I could see anyone else doing it. Only way I think I am different from others is that I am just more flexible in general. And stubborn when it comes to achieving what I want. That’s the bulk of it imo. As for becoming the next Magnus or someone like that in my 30s, indeed, very unlikely. Supposedly 30 is begin of the downfall in chess. Maybe I still have 10 years to improve/play well if it is true (some like Vishy Anand or the late Viktor Korchnoi defy age somehow).