New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Roundup: Nature versus Nurture

Three books tackle whether talents are innate or cultivated

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

While watching the Winter Olympics this year, you may have pondered whether top athletes are born with incredible endurance and speed or whether such skills can be developed through years of intense training. According to sports psychologist Jim Afremow, raw talent isn't everything.

In The Champion's Mind: How Great Athletes Think, Train, and Thrive (Rodale Books, 2014), Afremow argues that getting an edge over the competition can boil down to mental preparation. He provides advice for how to thrive in high-pressured situations, such as avoiding comparing yourself with others and visualizing success (picture yourself at the finish line!).

Although the right mental and physical preparation does help, it is also clear that success depends heavily on our genes. In The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance (Current Hardcover, 2013), Sports Illustrated writer David Epstein combs through the scientific literature to explain the complexities of the nature versus nurture debate. “Even at the most basic level, it's always a hardware and software story,” he writes. But for some, no amount of dedicated training will do the trick. One study revealed that a chess player reached the master level after only 3,000 hours of training, whereas others had not progressed to that level after 25,000 hours.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


According to Malcolm Gladwell, however, we often underestimate people because “we have a definition in our heads of what an advantage is—and the definition isn't right.” In David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants (Little, Brown, 2013), Gladwell proposes that traits that seem valuable may not always work in our favor, and vice versa. He bolsters this claim with scientific research and real-life examples. For instance, he explains how a basketball team with little technical skill made the finals by playing to their one strength—defense. Although Gladwell sometimes cherry-picks data or suggests causation when none exists, he always offers a compelling way of understanding ourselves and our capabilities.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe