As many authors have noted (including several in this Handbook), there is tremendous pressure to identify and develop talented young athletes in many countries around the world. This has resulted in a worldwide sporting culture where significant resources and infrastructure are directed towards selecting athletes who are seen as having the greatest potential for success on the global stage. Perhaps the most extreme example is the 2011 selection of an 18-month-old to a 10-year `symbolic contract` by a Dutch professional soccer team, largely based on the toddler`s performance in aYouTube video.1 Other examples exist that emphasize the desire for stakeholders in the athlete development system to identify and promote talent as soon as possible, using whatever means available (see 7-year-old Leonel Angel Coira and 10-year-old Ben Lederman who, in 2011, signed development contracts with Real Madrid and FC Barcelona respectively). The pressure and desire to identify and develop talent is also reflected in the tremendous financial investments in talent identification and development (TID) by both stakeholder organizations and the parents of developing athletes (see Campbell & Parcels` [2013] description of the latter). In fight of this emphasis on talent identification and development, we argue that how people think about talent, its origins and how it develops, influence not only the efficacy ofTID practices, but more importandy, the youth at the centre ofTID. While academic research over the past two decades supports the position that `the nature-nurture dualism is no longer relevant` (Davids & Baker, 2007), the perpetuation of these beliefs about ability may be a reflection of what evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins terms `the tyranny of the discontinuous mind` (Dawkins, 2015, p. 84); our tendency to accept or prefer often arbitrary dichotomies despite evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, peoples` beliefs about the roles of nature and nurture may still have real relevance `on the ground`. To borrow a sentiment from Stephen Jay Gould (Harrar, 1984), these things matter because they affect real people. With this in mind, our chapter considers the impacts of two different ways of conceptualizing talent: as something that is relatively stable or as something that can be modified (see Dweck 1999; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2009). First, we discuss the impact of holding mutually exclusive nature vs. nurture conceptualizations of ability on motivational, affective, and behavioural outcomes, as well as their influence on learning motor skills. We then discuss how a person`s beliefs about ability, and the modifiability of those beließ, may impact others (athletes) and the efficacy ofT ID in sport. We conclude with suggestions for future research and some unique considerations for how to conceptualize the nature of physical abilities.
© Copyright 2017 Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport. Veröffentlicht von Routledge. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.