"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."<p>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.
<i>"Ruth the Superman<p>The tests revealed the fact that Ruth is 90 per cent efficient compared with a human average of 60 per cent.<p>That his eyes are about 12 per cent faster than those of the average human being.<p>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.<p>That in attention and quickness of perception he rated one and a half times above the human average.<p>That in intelligence, as demonstrated by the quickness and accuracy of understanding, he is approximately 10 per cent above normal."</i><p>Popular Science, 1921<p><a href="http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-babe-ruth-greatest-home-run-hitter" rel="nofollow">http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-ba...</a>
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.<p>Just a theory, as I have no evidence besides my own experience.
The math by the commentator sucks, but this goal is still a masterpiece: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXA0PoEE6Y" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXA0PoEE6Y</a>
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."<p>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
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.<p>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.
Can we just assume that developing the brain in way that makes it better for golf or basketball has <i>any</i> 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?