Rick Wolff writes:
"As you probably can guess, personally I’m not big on trash talking. I may be old school, but I still prefer winning with dignity. That seems to be a trait that Ryan and the Jets don’t seem to care much about. Even worse, the victory by the Jets and their verbal demonstration will, unfortunately, have real impact on amateur teams. After all, why should HS kids or younger athletes care about keeping their mouths shut when the Jets have yapped their way to the AFC championship game?"
Dan here:
I am struck by two points that Rick makes.
To begin with, let us consider the idea of "dignity". I believe that dignity is an intrinsic, not extrinsic, value. An individual is more likely to behave with dignity when he possesses awareness as to what motivates his actions. Someone motivated by extrinsic forces---things such as winning a game, or turning a profit, or commanding the attention of peers, etc.---may not recognize a potential lack of dignity in his pursuit of these extrinsic goals. On the other hand, an individual guided by intrinsic values---values such as self-worth, or honesty, or courage, or compassion---might view trash-talking as behavior that is inconsistent with his world view. I am not saying that one set of choices is right and the other wrong; just that, without self-awareness, athletes may choose to pursue behaviors that help them reach extrinsic goals, all the while unaware that, in doing so, they are acting in ways that contradict their as yet unrealized behavioral compasses.
My second point refers to Rick's statement: "...Even worse, the victory by the Jets and their verbal demonstration will, unfortunately, have real impact on amateur teams. After all, why should HS kids or younger athletes care about keeping their mouths shut when the Jets have yapped their way to the AFC championship game?..."
Youth sports coaches are responsible for the on-field behavior of their players. A coach who does not allow his players to engage in trash-talking banter, and who (gently and with understanding) removes a player from the game when that player cannot abide by certain expectations, can help minimize the presence of things like trash-talking during competition. But just as importantly, this coach can help bring his players to a place of awareness by engaging his team in open discussions about this issue.
Young people, by their very nature, lack self-awareness. They often behave as they see others behave. They emulate the words and actions of their heroes. Young people have not, for the most part, been asked to examine why they choose to act in the manner they do. They have not been challenged toward integrating their actions with a set of beliefs based upon rigorous self-examination and awareness.
When a coach facilitates for his players a process that asks them to examine their perceptions---that asks the players to reflect upon why they respond to competition in the ways that they do, rather than simply placing dogmatic and rigid prohibitions on particular behaviors---this coach, in my opinion, moves his players closer to a place in which their actions and thoughts are integrated.
This to me is a crucial step in helping the children whom we coach understand what it truly means to compete with dignity.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
RE: Buddhism is the New Opium of the People
Mark Vernon in his essay on Buddhism writes:
"...Western Buddhism presents itself as a remedy against the stresses of modern life though, as Slavoj Žižek has noted, it actually functions as a perfect supplement to modern life. It allows adherents to decouple from the stress, whilst leaving the causes of the stress intact: consumptive forces continue unhindered along their creatively destructive path. In short, Buddhism is the new opium of the people..."
Mark has penned a provocative piece. Perhaps that was his purpose.
Buddhism for me is not an opiate. I do not practice Vipassana meditation in order to reduce my stress. I do not sit so that I might experience transcendent moments of serenity. I meditate so that I might increase my awareness. I meditate in an effort to gain insight into how my mind works. Meditation practice is part of a journey of honest and rigorous and compassionate self-examination, not an escape from reality. In fact, quite to the contrary, Vipassana meditation is a journey toward reality and away from the various melodramas and illusions that characterize normative cultural values in the West.
Perhaps nowhere is our penchant for melodrama and illusory thinking more powerful than in the competitive arena. Athletes, both young and old, often attach themselves to thoughts and beliefs and perceptions that are rooted in falsehood and that are borne of a lack of self-awareness. Meditation offers the practitioner the chance to step away from his attachment and identification with his perceptions, and to, in a lighthearted and non-judgmental way, see things for how they really are.
Athletes can benefit greatly from such a practice---not because meditation might get them "in the zone" so to speak, but because, through a dedication to discerning truth from fiction, they might participate in their chosen endeavor with the clarity, confidence, wisdom and generosity that come with self-knowledge.
"...Western Buddhism presents itself as a remedy against the stresses of modern life though, as Slavoj Žižek has noted, it actually functions as a perfect supplement to modern life. It allows adherents to decouple from the stress, whilst leaving the causes of the stress intact: consumptive forces continue unhindered along their creatively destructive path. In short, Buddhism is the new opium of the people..."
Mark has penned a provocative piece. Perhaps that was his purpose.
Buddhism for me is not an opiate. I do not practice Vipassana meditation in order to reduce my stress. I do not sit so that I might experience transcendent moments of serenity. I meditate so that I might increase my awareness. I meditate in an effort to gain insight into how my mind works. Meditation practice is part of a journey of honest and rigorous and compassionate self-examination, not an escape from reality. In fact, quite to the contrary, Vipassana meditation is a journey toward reality and away from the various melodramas and illusions that characterize normative cultural values in the West.
Perhaps nowhere is our penchant for melodrama and illusory thinking more powerful than in the competitive arena. Athletes, both young and old, often attach themselves to thoughts and beliefs and perceptions that are rooted in falsehood and that are borne of a lack of self-awareness. Meditation offers the practitioner the chance to step away from his attachment and identification with his perceptions, and to, in a lighthearted and non-judgmental way, see things for how they really are.
Athletes can benefit greatly from such a practice---not because meditation might get them "in the zone" so to speak, but because, through a dedication to discerning truth from fiction, they might participate in their chosen endeavor with the clarity, confidence, wisdom and generosity that come with self-knowledge.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
RE: Sometimes the Reward IS in Playing Your Best
writes:
"If you only equate success in sports to winning, and base your self-esteem on this value, you will inevitably sacrifice the greater rewards that come from playing sports. Striving to win is important—it’s the ultimate real world measure of your preparation and play. But if you see winning and losing only in absolute terms, and not relative to you and your team’s quality of play and effort, you will lose out on countless moments of joy that sports can provide."
Dan here:
Jeffrey's argument is of course spot-on. Basing our self-esteem, our sense of self-worth, upon something as extrinsic as winning a game is problematic. But I would take Jeff's point a step or two further.
Children develop, based upon their experiences and upon other neurological considerations, intricate and complex psychic maps. These maps, or pathologies, dictate how children respond to various stimuli. For example, a child who grows up in an unpredictable environment may develop ways of seeing the world that are rigid and dogmatic. If this youngster does not have the good fortune, as he grows older, to have his maps--- his perceptions---challenged by caring and compassion adults in his life, he may come to believe that his view of things, no matter how inconsistent with reality, is the only possible truth.
Young athletes whose self-esteem is measured in pats-on-the-back and trophies and league championships need to have those perceptions challenged by the adults in their lives. Yes, winning can be awesome; and yes, in the competitive arena, successful coaches use the goal of winning as a platform upon which they build an experience that teaches myriad life skills for their players. But coaches also need to recognize that each child whom they coach brings a unique set of experiences, and thus a unique set of perceptions and beliefs, with them to the endeavor. And each child will respond differently to the coach's incitements and teachings, and to the competitive experience.
I believe that the compassionate youth coach helps his players navigate their way through whatever false or negative perceptions---perceptions about winning and about self-esteem, for example---they may possess, and that the truly successful coach does so in a manner that honors and elucidates for each child his or her intrinsic value and worth.
"If you only equate success in sports to winning, and base your self-esteem on this value, you will inevitably sacrifice the greater rewards that come from playing sports. Striving to win is important—it’s the ultimate real world measure of your preparation and play. But if you see winning and losing only in absolute terms, and not relative to you and your team’s quality of play and effort, you will lose out on countless moments of joy that sports can provide."
Dan here:
Jeffrey's argument is of course spot-on. Basing our self-esteem, our sense of self-worth, upon something as extrinsic as winning a game is problematic. But I would take Jeff's point a step or two further.
Children develop, based upon their experiences and upon other neurological considerations, intricate and complex psychic maps. These maps, or pathologies, dictate how children respond to various stimuli. For example, a child who grows up in an unpredictable environment may develop ways of seeing the world that are rigid and dogmatic. If this youngster does not have the good fortune, as he grows older, to have his maps--- his perceptions---challenged by caring and compassion adults in his life, he may come to believe that his view of things, no matter how inconsistent with reality, is the only possible truth.
Young athletes whose self-esteem is measured in pats-on-the-back and trophies and league championships need to have those perceptions challenged by the adults in their lives. Yes, winning can be awesome; and yes, in the competitive arena, successful coaches use the goal of winning as a platform upon which they build an experience that teaches myriad life skills for their players. But coaches also need to recognize that each child whom they coach brings a unique set of experiences, and thus a unique set of perceptions and beliefs, with them to the endeavor. And each child will respond differently to the coach's incitements and teachings, and to the competitive experience.
I believe that the compassionate youth coach helps his players navigate their way through whatever false or negative perceptions---perceptions about winning and about self-esteem, for example---they may possess, and that the truly successful coach does so in a manner that honors and elucidates for each child his or her intrinsic value and worth.
RE: "Coach Regrets Bad Behavior"
The following post is from Mark Hyman at the Youth Sports Parents blog:
"I found this interesting. The men's basketball coach at D-III Holy Family in Philadelphia shoves (perhaps "assaults" is the better word) one of his own players during a workout. The incident is captured on videotape and the coach is suspended.
Somehow, the coach and player end up as guests on Good Morning America. They are sitting next to one another at a table as a host asks the coach whether he wishes to apologize to the player and the player whether he is able to forgive the coach. It is an odd moment and I will not give away the ending.
Suffice to say the coach expresses regret for his actions. It seems to me he most regrets that the tape of this incident has gone viral.
I have known high school and college coaches who were severe with their players - in my judgment, overly so. I could respect them because it seemed to me that they remained in control. The stern treatment was a calculation on their part, a prod with a purpose. At times a particular rant might seem over the top to me. I could see the reasoning even if I disagreed with it.
This is different. It seems to me that John O'Connor just lost his head. Or mind."
Dan here:
When our actions as coaches come from places that we do not ourselves fully understand, we are moving into difficult and troubling territory. Coach O'Connor is in no way unique; perhaps exaggerated and "over the top", but in no way unique. I would assume that he felt angry about something that happened (or didn't happen) during practice, that he reacted to his anger by behaving inappropriately, and that he realized after the fact that perhaps he had crossed the (implied) line.
There are hundreds of "Coach O'Connors" working with our kids today. These men and women, I would argue, lack self-awareness. When they feel angry, they do not possess the ability to question themselves as to whether or not their anger is justified or if it is in fact based in reality. They see their perceptions as truth, and they react accordingly. Worse still, these coaches often develop elaborate rationalizations as a way to make their impulsive behaviors appear righteous and entirely acceptable.
We live in a culture that does not value self-examination. We live in a culture that honors melodrama and "winning" more than it does truth. As coaches, I think that part of our job is to be tireless in our own commitment to examining how and why we respond to situations and to certain children in the manner we do. And as we become increasingly self-aware, our tendency to react thoughtlessly and impulsively to our states-of-mind diminishes, and our ability to treat our players with more compassion and respect grows.
"I found this interesting. The men's basketball coach at D-III Holy Family in Philadelphia shoves (perhaps "assaults" is the better word) one of his own players during a workout. The incident is captured on videotape and the coach is suspended.
Somehow, the coach and player end up as guests on Good Morning America. They are sitting next to one another at a table as a host asks the coach whether he wishes to apologize to the player and the player whether he is able to forgive the coach. It is an odd moment and I will not give away the ending.
Suffice to say the coach expresses regret for his actions. It seems to me he most regrets that the tape of this incident has gone viral.
I have known high school and college coaches who were severe with their players - in my judgment, overly so. I could respect them because it seemed to me that they remained in control. The stern treatment was a calculation on their part, a prod with a purpose. At times a particular rant might seem over the top to me. I could see the reasoning even if I disagreed with it.
This is different. It seems to me that John O'Connor just lost his head. Or mind."
Dan here:
When our actions as coaches come from places that we do not ourselves fully understand, we are moving into difficult and troubling territory. Coach O'Connor is in no way unique; perhaps exaggerated and "over the top", but in no way unique. I would assume that he felt angry about something that happened (or didn't happen) during practice, that he reacted to his anger by behaving inappropriately, and that he realized after the fact that perhaps he had crossed the (implied) line.
There are hundreds of "Coach O'Connors" working with our kids today. These men and women, I would argue, lack self-awareness. When they feel angry, they do not possess the ability to question themselves as to whether or not their anger is justified or if it is in fact based in reality. They see their perceptions as truth, and they react accordingly. Worse still, these coaches often develop elaborate rationalizations as a way to make their impulsive behaviors appear righteous and entirely acceptable.
We live in a culture that does not value self-examination. We live in a culture that honors melodrama and "winning" more than it does truth. As coaches, I think that part of our job is to be tireless in our own commitment to examining how and why we respond to situations and to certain children in the manner we do. And as we become increasingly self-aware, our tendency to react thoughtlessly and impulsively to our states-of-mind diminishes, and our ability to treat our players with more compassion and respect grows.
RE: "It's Part of the Game"
Jon Reischal, of Integrity in Youth Sports blog, writes:
"...It's part of the game." The phrase is simple enough, but in certain situations, it's one of the great cop-outs of all time. And just yesterday one of the planet's most famous baseball players used it shamelessly.
"Check out the story on MLB.com. Here's the scenario: New York Yankees playing the Tampa Bay Rays in a critical series between arguably the two best teams in baseball to help decide the division championship. Derek Jeter is at the plate when a pitch sails in high and tight. Jeter cringes and doubles over in pain. The umpire awards him first base thinking the ball struck him in the hand. The Yankees manager and trainer come out to attend to their supposedly injured star.
Rays manager Joe Maddon argued ferociously that the ball didn't hit Jeter at all, that it hit his bat instead and rolled fair. Maddon couldn't convince the men in blue and was eventually thrown out of the game. Well it turns out Maddon was right. Replays showed that the ball hit the bat and not Jeter, who played it up like he was on Broadway and helped sell the false idea to get himself on first base.
Jeter dismissed it with "it's part of the game." I thought it was cowardly. Jeter thinks getting on base is his job, even if it takes bold-faced lying to get there. I think he demonstrated a complete lack of principle. Jeter thinks winning is more important than character. I think it's funny and sad all at once that he lost both the game and his integrity in one bad night.
The worst part is there are youth baseball players all over the country who now think a little bit more like Derek Jeter thinks. That there are no absolutes in sports, no black and white. Some cheating is OK. You can give away part of who you are as long as you get on base. It's alright to sacrifice a little integrity if it moves your team a little closer to victory.
I don't care what Derek Jeter says. Those things aren't part of the game..."
Dan here:
I appreciate Jon's frustration. How do we stand a chance in helping our children discern right from wrong when their heroes appear to struggle with the same issues? Perhaps within that very question lies the answer.
There is no reason to assume that Derek Jeter has spent time reflecting upon such things as gamesmanship, or the importance placed upon winning and losing 'at all costs', etc. And without such reflection, there is simply no way for Jeter---or anyone, for that matter---to behave with "integrity".
The term "integrity" derives its meaning from the root, integration. When I consider my integrity, I commit to a process that includes a rigorous examination as to whether or not my actions and perceptions and beliefs come from a place of insight and truth, or whether instead they are borne of my fears, insecurities, greed, or other such emotions.
When I am acting in ways that are consistent with a commitment and dedication to truthfulness, my actions are far more often than not integrated with my beliefs.
I assume that many professional athletes---and many amateur athletes as well---"believe" that gamesmanship is acceptable because they are perhaps afraid that believing differently might be seen as a sign of weakness. The irony, of course, is that we derive great strength from our willingness to act in ways that are integrated with our sense of right and wrong.
As we work with the young athletes whom we coach, it is incumbent upon us to model for them our own commitment to self-examination, and to awareness. I never teach my soccer players how to "game" the system. That is a conscious decision that I have made based upon my desire to integrate my beliefs with my actions. And I always take time to explain to them why I make such a choice.
But let me be clear: I also never tell my players that such actions are wrong, per se. They have to come to their own decisions on these types of issues. Yes, they are not allowed to engage in gamesmanship when they are playing on a team that I coach. But another coach might allow such actions. And I cannot, in good conscience, take the position that somehow I am right and the other coach is wrong. I do not want to put players in the position of finding themselves caught in the middle while two "adults" take different sides on an issue.
Let's be honest. What do kids see when they watch professional sports? They see tactics employed by professional players---tactics in soccer that include delaying the game, shirt-pulling, so-called professional fouls, etc.---all aimed at "gaming" the rules in the quest for a positive result. Whether this is right or wrong is not the central issue. Opinions will always vary. The issue, it seems to me, is whether or not we, the coaches of our youth players, have taken the time to think about why we either find gamesmanship to be acceptable or not, and whether we have shared our thoughts and observations with our players.
If we are truly committed to helping the kids that we coach become more self-aware, than I believe we need to facilitate a process that gives them the space to come to their own decisions about such things.
"...It's part of the game." The phrase is simple enough, but in certain situations, it's one of the great cop-outs of all time. And just yesterday one of the planet's most famous baseball players used it shamelessly.
"Check out the story on MLB.com. Here's the scenario: New York Yankees playing the Tampa Bay Rays in a critical series between arguably the two best teams in baseball to help decide the division championship. Derek Jeter is at the plate when a pitch sails in high and tight. Jeter cringes and doubles over in pain. The umpire awards him first base thinking the ball struck him in the hand. The Yankees manager and trainer come out to attend to their supposedly injured star.
Rays manager Joe Maddon argued ferociously that the ball didn't hit Jeter at all, that it hit his bat instead and rolled fair. Maddon couldn't convince the men in blue and was eventually thrown out of the game. Well it turns out Maddon was right. Replays showed that the ball hit the bat and not Jeter, who played it up like he was on Broadway and helped sell the false idea to get himself on first base.
Jeter dismissed it with "it's part of the game." I thought it was cowardly. Jeter thinks getting on base is his job, even if it takes bold-faced lying to get there. I think he demonstrated a complete lack of principle. Jeter thinks winning is more important than character. I think it's funny and sad all at once that he lost both the game and his integrity in one bad night.
The worst part is there are youth baseball players all over the country who now think a little bit more like Derek Jeter thinks. That there are no absolutes in sports, no black and white. Some cheating is OK. You can give away part of who you are as long as you get on base. It's alright to sacrifice a little integrity if it moves your team a little closer to victory.
I don't care what Derek Jeter says. Those things aren't part of the game..."
Dan here:
I appreciate Jon's frustration. How do we stand a chance in helping our children discern right from wrong when their heroes appear to struggle with the same issues? Perhaps within that very question lies the answer.
There is no reason to assume that Derek Jeter has spent time reflecting upon such things as gamesmanship, or the importance placed upon winning and losing 'at all costs', etc. And without such reflection, there is simply no way for Jeter---or anyone, for that matter---to behave with "integrity".
The term "integrity" derives its meaning from the root, integration. When I consider my integrity, I commit to a process that includes a rigorous examination as to whether or not my actions and perceptions and beliefs come from a place of insight and truth, or whether instead they are borne of my fears, insecurities, greed, or other such emotions.
When I am acting in ways that are consistent with a commitment and dedication to truthfulness, my actions are far more often than not integrated with my beliefs.
I assume that many professional athletes---and many amateur athletes as well---"believe" that gamesmanship is acceptable because they are perhaps afraid that believing differently might be seen as a sign of weakness. The irony, of course, is that we derive great strength from our willingness to act in ways that are integrated with our sense of right and wrong.
As we work with the young athletes whom we coach, it is incumbent upon us to model for them our own commitment to self-examination, and to awareness. I never teach my soccer players how to "game" the system. That is a conscious decision that I have made based upon my desire to integrate my beliefs with my actions. And I always take time to explain to them why I make such a choice.
But let me be clear: I also never tell my players that such actions are wrong, per se. They have to come to their own decisions on these types of issues. Yes, they are not allowed to engage in gamesmanship when they are playing on a team that I coach. But another coach might allow such actions. And I cannot, in good conscience, take the position that somehow I am right and the other coach is wrong. I do not want to put players in the position of finding themselves caught in the middle while two "adults" take different sides on an issue.
Let's be honest. What do kids see when they watch professional sports? They see tactics employed by professional players---tactics in soccer that include delaying the game, shirt-pulling, so-called professional fouls, etc.---all aimed at "gaming" the rules in the quest for a positive result. Whether this is right or wrong is not the central issue. Opinions will always vary. The issue, it seems to me, is whether or not we, the coaches of our youth players, have taken the time to think about why we either find gamesmanship to be acceptable or not, and whether we have shared our thoughts and observations with our players.
If we are truly committed to helping the kids that we coach become more self-aware, than I believe we need to facilitate a process that gives them the space to come to their own decisions about such things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)