It is interesting, though, how non-general strength is.
There is indeed a widely (unwittingly) held idea that “strength” is a one-dimensional thing: consider, say, superhero comics where the Hulk is stronger than anybody else, which means he’s stronger at everything. You never read a comic where the Hulk is stronger at lifting things but Thor is stronger at throwing; that would feel really weird to most people. If the Marvel universe had a comic about strength sports, the Hulk would be the best at every sport.
But this isn’t at all how strength works in the real world: there is a pretty large component of specificity. Very, very few athletes are competitive at high levels in even two strength sports, never mind all of them. Giant male powerlifters frequently have a snatch weaker than tiny female weightlifters, despite having dramatically more lean body mass, and naturally higher testosterone, and (usually) the benefit of performance-enhancing drugs. And if you put a powerlifter in the Highland Games—a contest of strength via various throwing events—well, they’d be hopeless!
To a strength athlete, this is obvious. Of course powerlifters have a lousy snatch! Most powerlifters don’t even train the snatch! Strength isn’t just about raw muscle mass; there is a very large component of skill, technique, and even neural adaptation to specific movement patterns.
But under the folk one-dimensional model of strength, this is a strange and surprising fact.
It does! It’s pretty reasonable to say that I’m much stronger than the average non-athlete, and Dan Green is much stronger than me, and all the fiddly caveats don’t really change that analysis.
Does this work better or worse than IQ? I’m not sure.
Sub-components of “strength” are each just skills. Some skills have broader applicability transfer than others. There is nothing universally upstream of every single other strength skill.
I’d think of the hulk’s universal strength as something like the difference between species instead of between individuals. I don’t know, but I imagine that a mountain gorilla is much stronger than me, at bench pressing, at deadlifting, at overheard pressing, at throwing, etc.
It is interesting, though, how non-general strength is.
There is indeed a widely (unwittingly) held idea that “strength” is a one-dimensional thing: consider, say, superhero comics where the Hulk is stronger than anybody else, which means he’s stronger at everything. You never read a comic where the Hulk is stronger at lifting things but Thor is stronger at throwing; that would feel really weird to most people. If the Marvel universe had a comic about strength sports, the Hulk would be the best at every sport.
But this isn’t at all how strength works in the real world: there is a pretty large component of specificity. Very, very few athletes are competitive at high levels in even two strength sports, never mind all of them. Giant male powerlifters frequently have a snatch weaker than tiny female weightlifters, despite having dramatically more lean body mass, and naturally higher testosterone, and (usually) the benefit of performance-enhancing drugs. And if you put a powerlifter in the Highland Games—a contest of strength via various throwing events—well, they’d be hopeless!
To a strength athlete, this is obvious. Of course powerlifters have a lousy snatch! Most powerlifters don’t even train the snatch! Strength isn’t just about raw muscle mass; there is a very large component of skill, technique, and even neural adaptation to specific movement patterns.
But under the folk one-dimensional model of strength, this is a strange and surprising fact.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/km6/why_the_tails_come_apart/
I can’t find data, but I bet the one-dimensional folk model works quite well among the general population.
It does! It’s pretty reasonable to say that I’m much stronger than the average non-athlete, and Dan Green is much stronger than me, and all the fiddly caveats don’t really change that analysis.
Does this work better or worse than IQ? I’m not sure.
Sub-components of “strength” are each just skills. Some skills have broader applicability transfer than others. There is nothing universally upstream of every single other strength skill.
Some subcomponents aren’t skills—or at least, it seems odd to label e.g. “unusually long arms” as a skill—but this is a nitpick.
I’d think of the hulk’s universal strength as something like the difference between species instead of between individuals. I don’t know, but I imagine that a mountain gorilla is much stronger than me, at bench pressing, at deadlifting, at overheard pressing, at throwing, etc.