The "I can't be competitive ... " Fallacy

[dsmw5142]

But.... unicorn.

LMAO!!

[Nimitz]

ok, so after making the original post and sitting back to watch the debate in the hopes that someone would connect the dots about what I was really getting at, I guess its time to be a little more direct ..... some were on the right track but didn't quite get there ....

My belief is that 'the fallacy of being competitive', while certainly having an equipment element to it, actually has a much more sinister side to it then simply believing that buying better equipment will help make one's skills improve. What I believe is really going on has to do with basic human nature characteristics and directly relates to why certain people can make it to the elite levels of a sport and others can't ...

Now I can already hear all you "well he's got a lot of natural talent & that's why he's so good ..." types out there firing up your responses but this goes exactly to my point ...

I believe everyone's personality includes this "fallacy of being competitive" in their basic makeup and if they don't recognize it and take steps to avoid it, it permeates everything they do ... including how they approach training to become better at an activity. They subconsciously rationalize their behavior as enviable and something they can't do much about, thereby protecting their fragile egos against what will be certain failure, not even realizing that they themselves are causing this failure. This in turn then causes them to train in such a manner which actually guarantees they won't ever reach their goals - the classic self-fulfilling prophecy.

When I first met Ben he said something to me that finally made it all click ... he said that given the amount of time I was putting into training there was no way I should be a C class shooter but there I was, a C class shooter. Ben didn't know me from atom at that point yet he made the assertion that I should be way better at this point in my shooting. Why? Because he knew that I had a ton of natural talent & I was wasting it? No, because, based on his own experience I was putting in the requisite effort to be good but something else was missing. Subsequently he also said that he had seen a lot more people like me then he'd excepted who were working hard but not improving and realized then that it was the way they were training which was the issue - not simply caulk it up to "sorry dude, you're never going to be great since you don't have enough natural talent ..." so just except your suckyness and move on ...

So why are Eric, Ben & Max so good. The 'excuse' most use is that they have more natural talent then the rest of us and so it was enviable that they would become great. Ridiculous. They certainly have way more DEVELOPED talent then just about anyone can comprehend but basically no more natural ability when they started then the rest of us. Go back and look at one of ben's first books where he talks about the 10 myths of practical shooting ... one of them is that "the top shooters have some special ninja-like skills that make them better then the rest of us". The real difference between "them" & "us" is that through whatever means they were able to recognize this aspect of human nature and work past it to become great at their chosen activity anyway. Call it drive, determination, the will to win, but that's the real talent. And like real leadership, I don't believe you can really teach someone that ... you either have that in your basic personality make-up or you don't.

I've said it many times that the typical rank & file shooter literally has no concept of the EFFORT required to become an elite member of this (or any other) sport. And without that basic understanding of what it takes, they have no hope of achieving that result. And yes, I know there are legions of people out there who say they don't want to be a national champion, fine. But I'll bet if you talk to 'most' in our sport and ask them in private, where no one would ever hear their response, that wouldn't they like to be HOA (even at the local level) on a regular basis, or the guy that when they roll into a match everyone groans and says "oh great, looks like we're all now shooting for 2nd place), the answer would be a resounding YES.

This sport is a competition by design and to participate in it just to participate in it, with no regard to the competitive nature is just people protecting their fragile egos, not being honest with their true 'feelings'. (Ask your girlfriend/wife about how THAT effects things ....)

Please note that through this entire piece I've never said (nor will I ever say) whether this is a bad or good thing, since that's not the point. The point is about recognizing how our subconscious behavior colors our judgment and ultimately shapes our results ..... someone once said "we are our own worst enemy at times".

I'm now going to crawl back under my rock while I continue to wait for my wrist to heal so I can start shooting again .....

Edited June 5, 2015 by Nimitz

[RangerTrace]

I think that was a great post. Other than the then/than stuff.........

[Reshoot]

I think that was a great post. Other than the then/than stuff........

"didn't know me from atom" gave me a chuckle. You see, I know Adam

[Southpaw]

So do you believe natural talent exists in other sports and not shooting or doesn't exist at all? If I wake up tomorrow and decide I want to win the NY Marathon, Tour de France, Wimbledon, etc. do I have a realistic shot if I believe in myself and train hard enough? I'm not saying natural talent is the main reason Eric, Ben, Max, etc. are at the top of the sport, but I also don't deny its existence.

I do agree that the mindset that "I'll never be as good as them" can be very detrimental to your training and improvement, but I don't think everyone needs to strive to be national champs.

I'm curious if a survey were done of professional sports players across various sports as to whether natural talent exists what the outcome would be.

[Racinready300ex]

I won't say natural talent doesn't exist. But I think people give it more credit than it deserves. Sure some people have a leg up in some area's. Your body may be built better to do certain things. But, I don't think that's what makes them great. I think your personality and mindset are a more important natural "talent" to have, not being fast or strong or some shit like that.

I've been at the line before and heard someone behind me say. "watch this guy, he's a natural". And I thought to myself that guy has no clue. I sucked just as much as everyone else at that club when I started. I just worked harder at it, some just see it as being a natural so they have a excuse for why they can't do it.

[bofe954]

Anyone ever heard of Dock Ellis? He was a major league baseball pitcher. Pitched a no hitter on acid. Never pitched a game sober, by his own admission. I wonder how hard he practiced in his 11 years of pitching to be so good?

Granted there were better pitchers at the time, but imagine all the college guys and minor league guys working their asses off that couldn't even get in the majors, where Dock was pitching with a liter of vodka in him.

[Racinready300ex]

How hard did he practice? I assume you know the answer or you wouldn't ask. If you don't know and your assuming it was just pure natural talent....well how can I argue with that logic? I don't know the guy, maybe he practiced his ass off but had stage freight and needed to be stoned to get in front of all those people and do his thing. He wouldn't be the first person like that.

[jkrispies]

Call it drive, determination, the will to win, but that's the real talent. And like real leadership, I don't believe you can really teach someone that ... you either have that in your basic personality make-up or you don't.....

I'm wondering if the above statement goes against your intended point? It seams to me your intention is that if people recognize this thought process flaw, then they can correct it.

I believe this is not a natural predisposition but a learned helplessness. For example, take a 6 year old who is learning math and going through a normal struggle. Mom can teach her to power through it to mastery or say, "Oh, you're just like me and math was never my thing." Either way, that kid just learned a very powerful lesson that will have ramifications for the rest of her life. The good news is that this only exists in the mind, and minds can be changed if the mind is willing.

See Josh Waitzkin's excellent book The Art of Learning for more on this.

Regarding "natural talent," I'm somewhat dubious that it is something folks are born with, excepting fast twitch muscle fibers for running, height for basketball, etc. However, people who begin playing sports at a young age while their brains are still developing will create specialized neural pathways that remain for their lives but won't develop for those who begin that same activity later in life. See Harold Klawans' Why Michael Couldn't Hit. KC Eusubio is a good example, and I think Max Michel as well. This doesn't mean that somebody who begins later in life can't get extremely good at said activity, but they will lack these developed natural pathways to assist in their development. Some people will call these neural pathways natural talent, but it isn't something they were just born with: it initially came through hard work and training that happened to occur at an early age.

Waitzkin is a stellar example. He became a chess champion at an early age. In his 20's (after brain development settled) he quit chess and took up martial arts, becoming a champion at that. Now, he questions if skills he developed in chess spill over, which is possible, but it shows that with the proper mindset and work ethic, excellence can be achieved by a person even in wildly different pursuits.

Edited June 5, 2015 by jkrispies

[bofe954]

I won't say natural talent doesn't exist. But I think people give it more credit than it deserves. Sure some people have a leg up in some area's. Your body may be built better to do certain things. But, I don't think that's what makes them great. I think your personality and mindset are a more important natural "talent" to have, not being fast or strong or some shit like that.

I've been at the line before and heard someone behind me say. "watch this guy, he's a natural". And I thought to myself that guy has no clue. I sucked just as much as everyone else at that club when I started. I just worked harder at it, some just see it as being a natural so they have a excuse for why they can't do it.

How do you know you worked harder at it than them?

[Racinready300ex]

Because most people are quick to tell you how little they practice. And why they don't have time.

Also, you can get a pretty good idea how much time someone puts in by how they shoot. That's not always the case, some guys work really hard or at least think they do and don't get anywhere. They're probably just doing something wrong. I know guys who shoot a lot more than me. Shooting 1 or more matches a week. They aren't improving because they aren't really working on anything, they're just shooting. There is a big difference.

I'm not great, but I know my skills weren't thanks to natural talent.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Racinready300ex

[JimmyZip]

We should be out and competing against ourselves, getting better, and competing against our previous outing. Realistically this is an individual sport. You should be competing against the clock, and Murphy. If you put other competitors in your head, no bueno. So being competitive is a relative term. Can you best your best? If so, then you are competitive.

[bofe954]

There are a lot of threads like this. This one is more convoluted than most, because post 1 and post 52 are presenting two completely different topics.

Post 1-

It's amazing to me the number of people who have never won a local match, never mind placed in the top 10 at a level II or III match but are still concerned somehow about being 'competitive' when they are going to make a change when clearly they are not now, nor have they ever been competitive. And yes, we can debate the definition of competitive all day but I believe the way most use it it means being a legitimate contender for the win or top 3 or so.

So I guess most of us don't need to concern ourselves with being competitive, or make a gear change. True enough, I am in no danger of winning nationals this year, regardless of division or equipment.

Then there's this part in post 52-

I've said it many times that the typical rank & file shooter literally has no concept of the EFFORT required to become an elite member of this (or any other) sport.

Then it devolves into talent vs effort.

I think in general every sport, including USPSA rewards effort. Most guys I know that are long time C's and B's are just match shooters. They don't really practice, dry or live, or they are sporadic. I think they are content with where they are and enjoy the sport as much as anyone else. I don't know why people get bent out of shape when they spend too much on a gun.

A's and M's and GM's work at it. They dryfire and shoot regularly, they go to big matches. I think how hard people work and the effort required in that A-GM spectrum is foggy and hard to quantify. I don't think you could say that every competitive A works at the sport less than every M.

I don't think people personally can tell how hard they work. I would invite you to ask anyone, at any place of employment if they work harder than their coworkers. Most people will say they do, but somebody must be wrong. I've never had anyone explain to me that they are the laziest guy in the office, construction site, car lot or whatever.

What's USPSA effort anyway? People throw around round counts per year. How about hours spent on the sport? We all know you can waste ammo and not learn anything, and if you have a slow press you could put in 100+ hours per year loading, and you won't learn anything. Some guys live 2 hours from a range, some live 20 minutes, who will spend more time to practice?

In general if any of us worked harder we'd improve, but I think the efficiency is the answer. The guys who can train more efficiently end up better and they do it faster and easier than the rest of us. Being able to train efficiently is a talent, and so is performance under pressure. If you can't do those things you can improve, but you won't be competitive in this definition:

being a legitimate contender for the win or top 3 or so

There are plenty of GM's who are not competitive by that definition. Why not? It's not like they didn't work hard, the GM card didn't fall into their lap. They practice, some pay for coaching, fitness training and are still not going to be top three at nationals this year.

I wouldn't want to walk up to one of them and tell them to quit slacking off so they can be competitive...

Edited June 5, 2015 by bofe954

[Southpaw]

Good post bofe954

Ok, I was on my phone before and it's a pain to edit quotes

When I first met Ben he said something to me that finally made it all click ... he said that given the amount of time I was putting into training there was no way I should be a C class shooter but there I was, a C class shooter. Ben didn't know me from atom at that point yet he made the assertion that I should be way better at this point in my shooting. Why? Because he knew that I had a ton of natural talent & I was wasting it? No, because, based on his own experience I was putting in the requisite effort to be good but something else was missing. Subsequently he also said that he had seen a lot more people like me then he'd excepted who were working hard but not improving and realized then that it was the way they were training which was the issue - not simply caulk it up to "sorry dude, you're never going to be great since you don't have enough natural talent ..." so just except your suckyness and move on ...

I'm a bit confused about what you're saying here. It seems like you're saying you were stuck in C class and had the mindset that you could never improve. Then Ben told you that you don't need natural talent to succeed, something clicked in your brain, and you were then suddenly able to move past C class? Because it sounds more like Ben was saying that you're putting in the time and effort, but were not practicing effectively and in order to improve you need to change the way you practice, no? After taking a class with Ben you started to improve because you implemented some of the training regiments he suggested, right? I'd think that people will improve when they train effectively and efficiently like bofe954 was saying and not just from realizing that they don't need natural talent to improve.

I do agree that there are plenty of people who mentally fool themselves into thinking there's no way they can ever get better and therefore never do improve. But that's usually because they give up and don't practice effectively. It's not like every day they do hours of dry and live fire, practicing the right techniques, but don't improve because of some mental block. They're probably just not practicing.

This sport is a competition by design and to participate in it just to participate in it, with no regard to the competitive nature is just people protecting their fragile egos, not being honest with their true 'feelings'. (Ask your girlfriend/wife about how THAT effects things ....)

Earlier you defined competitive as being in the top 3 at a major so, like others said earlier, you're saying everyone who participates in USPSA should be striving towards being a contender to win majors. I personally disagree with this and think it's interesting how you and others have stated this opinion in the form of a fact.

I do care about being competitive; I just have a very different definition of competitive than winning majors. I also know plenty of people who don't care about the competitive aspect of USPSA (mostly C & D class shooters) who shoot just for fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, heck, these guys are having a good time at the matches, who am I to judge them and say they're approaching the sport all wrong?

And regarding natural talent, you really think it doesn't exist...really??? (this was one of the first videos that came up when I searched, there were plenty of other similar ones)

[Youngeyes]

"They subconsciously rationalize their behavior as enviable and something they can't do much about, thereby protecting their fragile egos ...." I'm of the opinion that some top shooters have a more fragile ego than most. It's that "fragile" ego issue that pushes them to win. Desire to win or fear of losing? I think this little egotistical statement bears me out..".I've said it many times that the typical rank & file shooter literally has no concept of the EFFORT required to become an elite member of this (or any other) sport." Typical rank and file and the elite? Ego much? "This sport is a competition by design and to participate in it just to participate in it, with no regard to the competitive nature is just people protecting their fragile egos, not being honest with their true 'feelings'." Again with the fragile egos. Desire feeds your ego and competitive shooters feel a desire to win. That protects their egos. I always get leery when someone discusses the perceived ego problems of others. Of course all of this is just my opinion. I will continue to participate in a sport I've come to love and leave the ego feeding issues to others, wiser and more experienced.

[Neomet]

Soooo by extrapolation:

The only competitive baseball players are those striving to be on the winning team of the world series. Every year.

The only competitive golfers are the top 3 or 4 in the PGA.

The only competitive swimmers are those training hard for the next olympics.

Unless you are positioning yourself to win the Tour de France you are just a recreational bicyclist.

If I train hard enough, smart enough and sacrifice enough I will run down Usain Bolt in the last 20 meters.

If only I would quit giving up I could swim from Cuba to Florida.

With the proper fortitude and focus I can free climb the Matterhorn.

Sorry for taking the arguments ad absurdum but I do it to make a point. I agree what others have said. Individuals can absolutely be competitive but have totally different goals beyond HOA. Nobody else may understand them and it doesn't matter if they do. If going for HOA is yours that is outstanding but no more so than the guy who wants to remember to not walk past a target at the next match. Secondly, how far one can progress in the sport is to some degree influenced by natural skill sets. How much is certainly up to debate, but to ignore that influence makes no sense to me at all. It strikes me as a variation of the Horatio Alger myth.

I'm happy anytime anyone is enjoying their time at the range. Don't care why. It is better for me to spend my time analyzing my own thoughts and motivations instead of others. :-)

[jkrispies]

No, without being born with the proper physical structure, it is impossible to outrun Usain Bolt, but even with the proper physique it won't happen without the proper mindset to accompany it. Similarly, the guy who lacks just the perfect physical combination of muscle and bone to beat Bolt may never do it, but he can get worlds closer to that goal by believing in himself rather than accepting excuses for failure from the start. More importantly, in attempting to achieve his "impossible" goal, does he become a better person through the sheer enjoyment of competing, becoming healthier, becoming more self-aware, or...?

Something else to maw upon: a somewhat disturbing studiy showed that the sort of person who will make it to the Olympics lies to himself more than the average person. Yes, he outright lies to himself, and he believes his own lies. In other words, he's far more willing to look at the "impossible" and believe in the possibility that he alone can succeed at it. And in lying to himself... he actually encourages himself along until he does what everybody else says was impossible. I believe this is the radio article that introduced me to the study: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91618-lying-to-ourselves/

This self-deception can lead people to do what "can't" be done even if it doesn't lead to a championship or a career in professional sports, but just the self-pleasure of knowing that they achieved an "impossible" goal:

Or how about the 5'0 100 pound woman who wants to climb a 14' wall?

And how cool is it that maybe the 5'5" guy who was always told he can never dunk might be able to think outside the box to make it happen AND inspire others to succeed at whatever goal they choose? We can all do that!

I think the takeaway from all of this, at least as far as it relates to USPSA competition, should be that with the proper mindset a person can excel farther towards achieving their goals than without the proper mindset: and "proper mindset" is individual to the athlete (self-improvement via baby steps vs. HOA only matters), as is how far they wish to "excel" (becoming a "successful athlete" vs. just having fun with the guys).

For the normal guy, this doesn't have to mean winning Olympic gold or HOA, but it can allow somebody the sheer pleasure of achieving SOMETHING and becoming a better person for it.

Edited June 6, 2015 by jkrispies

[leeb10]

This sport is still unprofessionalized, ie. no spectator draw, advertisement dollars, formal training organizations, extensive sport science research, draft process, etc... What this means for is that the ability gap between a beginner shooter and one at the top level is far narrower say sports like baseball, golf, football, etc. I am confident that with 2-3 years of dedicated practice, and min. $1k in initial fixed costs, one can hit top 16 at USPSA nationals. That statement would not hold true in many other competitive sports.

[DreGarciaTAT2]

I was busting my ass in USPSA... Practicing, watching videos, improving the mechanics of my pistols, buying better holsters, pouches, ammo, etc... This is when I started shooting last year, and I was a lowly c class limited shooter... And I thought, how can I become a "competitive" shooter?? And it's actually really easy... I started shooting IDPA... and I've won my class in the last six consecutive major matches I've been in. Boom, proof is in the pudding. :-)

Seriously though, if people wanna try and purchase their skill VIA a high end, hand built pistol, they can't be convinced otherwise... I've seen RIA's take down Wilson Combats in single stack and CDP.... Glocks have legitimately smashed past SVI's in front of my own eyes.... That being said, a shooter is a shooter... And enjoying something for what it is, and realizing that you don't get the trophy, is ok. It's still the most fun sport I've ever participated in. Just my $0.02

[DreGarciaTAT2]

This sport is still unprofessionalized, ie. no spectator draw, advertisement dollars, formal training organizations, extensive sport science research, draft process, etc... What this means for is that the ability gap between a beginner shooter and one at the top level is far narrower say sports like baseball, golf, football, etc. I am confident that with 2-3 years of dedicated practice, and min. $1k in initial fixed costs, one can hit top 16 at USPSA nationals. That statement would not hold true in many other competitive sports.

I agree with this... Obviously, not generically true for everyone. But most 'decent' shooters are just funding and proper guidance away from being great.

My dad used to always say "there are only two things that you can't teach a man, drive, and talent." Thats a fact.

[waktasz]

I have to unsubscribe from this shit show, but I'll keep it in my bookmarks for when I need to come up with an excuse for not winning.

[Mad Doc]

The only "talent" you really need to be born with is the drive to practice. In most human activities the one that practices the most has the best results. In fact "talented" people do not see practice as "work" they find it a rather enjoyable and fun activity.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Mad Doc

[Dustbuster1]

Failure is trying something that didn't work. Eventually fails turn into wins with enough determination and persistence. I believe in competition you can buy the hell out of some gear, and ammo. Eventually it's evident that buying and burning more ammo will help the shooter accelerate. I asked jerry miculek if a million empty casings would be a sign of good shooting, he replied absolutely there's nothing better. For some guys they can afford to rack up gear at will, oh well same crap different hobby.....

Edited June 7, 2015 by Dustbuster1

[motosapiens]

I won't say natural talent doesn't exist. But I think people give it more credit than it deserves.

I'd say that some people use lack of natural talent as an excuse for not trying harder. For sure, anyone sentient can observe that humans are born with different genetic capabilities, but anyone sentient can also observe that everyone can be better than they are right now. For me, it's important to get better than I am. For others, maybe it's more important for them to have fun, shoot with their friends, buy cool new guns, and enjoy their lives. I think either option is reasonable, as long as they don't do one of the following:

1. get high and mighty on the interwebz judging other shooters for doing stuff differently.

2. make excuses and say "i'd be better if xxxxxxx"

For everyone else...... have fun, get better, live life. Oh, and drink beer. Almost forgot the important part.

Edited June 8, 2015 by motosapiens

[Neomet]

^^^^^^ This. Well said. I wasn't really clear that while I will always maintain that natural ability plays into how far one can ultimately progress, it is just as clearly not a rational explanation why anyone places where they do. Nobody can effectively measure natural talent so there is no way to say you have reached your limit. Never saw this as an excuse. It is interesting while discussing fragile egos of lesser performing shooters that even just mentioning natural talent can bruise up the egos of some higher performers who can see it as an affront to the hard work and sacrifices they have put in or what they can attain. Clearly delicate egos are not exclusive to any one level of performance.

Time for a beer!

Edited June 8, 2015 by Neomet