This image shows the coding region in a segment of eukaryotic DNA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In the previous essay, I addressed the matter of the state’s contribution to an individual’s success (and failure). Naturally, no discussion of success would be complete without a discussion of genetics.
While the role of genetics in human behavior is a rather complicated matter, it does seem eminently reasonable to accept that genetics play at least some role in success (and failure). Interestingly, these genes might not all be human—there are some interesting new findings regarding the role of the bacteria that live in us (which outnumber the cells in the human body 10 to 1).
Thanks to years spent in athletics, I have had access to an informal laboratory in which I could observe various factors at play when it comes to success. As might be imagined, genetics probably plays a rather significant role in athletic success (and failure). Being a runner, I will limit myself to running, but the same points can be applied to other aspects of life as well.
One rather obvious role of genetics is body type. As people who run or at least watch competitive running know, the top runners tend to have a rather specific body type. While much of this results from training, there are factors that are genetic. After all, no amount of running will give a person longer legs. There are also the factors that one cannot see, such as the efficiency of the cells when it comes to handling the energy requirements of competitive running. While these factors can be influenced by training, natural ability (which is probably largely based in genetics) does have a significant impact and this is supported by my own years of competitive running.
Having run in high school and college, I was able to observe runners who were in the same training programs, had similar backgrounds and lived in similar conditions. However, performance obviously varied quite a bit even among people who followed the exact same training. In my own case, I was fairly lucky—while I lacked the easy high school success of “natural athletes”, I found that training really paid off for me. In contrast, some other runners worked as hard (or harder) than me, yet did not meet with the same level of success. Of course, there were also runners who trained as hard as I did (or less) who did much better. After graduation, I was no longer on a team, but still trained with other runners. Obviously, some people I trained with and ran with step-for-step were better than me and some were worse. I also found out the obvious—no matter how hard or smart I trained, I would never be able to make the Olympics (although I did run against some of the best American marathoners in Ohio back in 1992). It makes sense to attribute some of this failure to genetics—my body simply cannot match what the Olympic marathoners can do, despite all that training. Of course, it also makes sense to attribute some of my success to genetics—while I do not have Olympian genes, I have brought home plenty of trophies. Plus, as we old runners say, running is itself a victory.
Naturally, these results were impacted by many variables, but the fact that genes influence performance seems to be well-established. The more interesting question is, then, “how much do genes influence success (and failure)?”
Not surprisingly, people often turn to the study of twins to attempt to sort out what is genetic and what is not. After all, twins are supposed to be genetically identical and hence any differences between them would be non-genetic in nature. Interestingly, it has turned out that twins are not actually identical, thus entailing that some differences might be genetic. There has also been some recent interesting work regarding the bacteria that inhabit the human body and their influence on such factors as health. Oddly enough, it might be the case that some of a person’s success is due to his bacteria.
While the physiological aspects of running and other activities at which one might fail or succeed seem to be strongly influenced by genetics, there is obviously a rather open question as to how much genetics impacts what might be called the mental aspects of success and failure. Going back to running, training and competition have very significant mental elements. For example, there is the matter of having the will to train as needed. As any runner will tell you, real training hurts. Of course, racing hurts more—a big part of being a competitive runner is having what Hobbes called the will to hurt. Only in this case it is the will to hurt yourself rather than others.
As might be imagined, if the “mental” aspects are as influenced by genetics as the physical aspects, then much of a person’s success or failure rests in these genes. For example, if the ability to finish a race despite a broken leg is not a matter of the will of the athlete, but a matter of the structure of his brain that resulted from the genes that constructed it, then he did not succeed. Likewise, if a runner is “broken” in the final sprint by a tougher runner because of the genetics of their nervous systems, then he has not failed.
Shockingly enough, the essay ends as it began, with the question unanswered. After all, we do not know how much the genes influence our success (and failures). But, I got to write about running and that is a success.
Hi Mike,
The metaphor you chose to exemplify success and failure is the underlying context of a race. But what is a race ? It is some kind of competition, where the winner wins because he has eliminated the other participants.
Now, this is a rather peculiar kind of situation in which success has a sense, isn’t it? I contend that it be the general case.
In a lot of other circumstances of everyday life, success can be attained without disqualifying the other people. Consider an artist that wants to succeed in creating a beautiful painting, or somebody who wants to be an honourable spouse, it does not follow at any rate they have to “eliminate” other people.
Thus I tend to think that your notion of success should be broadened in a sense it allows us to be successful in non-competitive ways, such as in non-zero sum games, for instance.
Yours truly,
–escape
Hey Mike – Here’s some anecdotal evidence in favor of genetics.
I ran a 6km race last night in 22:08, which gives me a WAVA score of 79.32% (age-graded rating). My best WAVA score for 10km is 79.50%. So almost identical.
These two races took place 16 years apart from each other…
Congratulations on the 6K. Inspired by you,I checked my WAVA score. It told me to retire. Is it supposed to do that?
Having been running a long time, I’ve noticed that runners who train seem to stay consistent within the age groups, although they do start to decline relative to the overall race.
Escape,
True-the race example of success is a competition in which some people win and some do not. I do not, however, limit success only to such cases-as you point out, there is success in cases which do not involve beating other people.
I know an old man who is Finnish. When he was a young man, Nurmi was the world’s best runner. There were other world-class Finnish runner too. And he was an avid fan of international running. Today the old man simply says ‘It’s hard to beat the black man.’
The Finns, I suspect, excelled at training. The Afro-American and African athletes seem to be genetically gifted. The question you asked may not be answerable for any one individual, but may be answerable as an empirical (i.e. statistical) question about race and athletic training.
I have been trying to say something about this essay and “How much is the state” for days. Fact is, a lack of confidence to articulate my viewpoint clearly and with clarity, has prevented me (quite successfully) in stating anything successfully! That doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t accurately depict my viewpoint (which has validity, reasoning, rationality and some insight) in at least making an effort towards a positive contribution.
After much thought, humming and hawing, toing and froing, starting writing, deleting etc it occured to me that perhaps my lack of “confidence” wasn’t actually about “confidence” at all. Perhaps it was and is more about the role competition and competitiveness play in the attainment of something positive and successful. The use of (and failures) are intrinsic to this supposed and apparent accepted lack of competitiveness. I would like to consider instead those (failures) with a sense of a positive influencing cooperativeness.
I am not a runner! Not in the sense of sprinting 200m or a 6K! But i’m sure that every runner has to deal with both the highs and lows of winning and losing. Everyone can’t cross the line together. In a race, someone does finish first and someone does finish last. This is the very nature of a race! A runner will presumably have found ways (or find a way) in which to deal with where they finish in a race. They will have found a way in which to deal with, handle and enjoy competition at whatever level. It seems to me then that the success of a race isn’t simply about winning the race. Success has a lot to do with how non-successes are handled.
Leading onto success (apologies if this is as clear as mud), success isn’t a stand alone accomplishment. There are of course mulitple aspects and intricacies for anything to be viewed as successful. The size of the success may be really small (or bacterial) and is entirely relative to some sort of comparison. Afterall, tiny baby steps were necessary for even the greatest of runners!
Mike said – “After all, we do not know how much the genes influence our success (and failures). But, I got to write about running and that is a success.”
Notwithstanding anything stated, the simple act of the pressing of a submit button can be viewed as massive success.
Nicola
I always win when I run because I feel good in myself afterwards.