What's the greater restriction on a skill cap - time available, or biology?
Depends on the setting.
>>43896293
R34 of 20 years old?
>>43896293
Both vary, depending on the skill and methods of instruction.
There are so many variables even when selecting individual skills that this thread is essentially incapable of reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
Biology.
You can't play the guitar without fingers.
The grammar in OP's picture is atrocious
>>43896293
Both:
The restriction has always been time's effect on biology.
>>43896293
Actually build a specific hypothetical scenario with more information and then maybe you can get a real answer. Otherwise "It depends on a number of variables."
>>43896293
>biology
what does that even mean?
anyway, the answer is neither. the only restriction is willpower. you can become a master of any skill with 10,000 hours of training. but most people can't train that hard.
>>43896293
Biology obviously.
We need time to develop our skills and reach our potential, but that potential is limited by biology in a big way.
Sooner or later you just hit a point where you'll not be as fast as other people who trained as much as you but are taller and have longer legs, or build as much muscle as someone bigger or someone male if you're female etc.
You can learn all kinds of thought patterns and knowledge, but you don't have endless capacity to improve your intelligence, IQ or whatever unit of measurement you prefer is largely hereditary.
>>43899186
This is obviously bullshit since a 5' asthmatic from Poland can train every hour of his life but will never beat some tall gangly Jamaican in a marathon.
Top performance requires both biology and training, the training is required to reach your potential, you're potential is limited by biology.
>>43899692
Your*, durr.
>>43896293
Biology. Why do you think PEDs are a thing?
