Martial arts testing and society today

[Gerry Seymour]

What about when the advice was by peer reviewed psychologists and said the same things?

I'd have to look for that. I'm not aware of such conclusions stated in psychological research, though that may simply be because I didn't get to any of the research papers that included such conclusions. Psychology is, always has been, and likely always will be a fuzzy science. There are too many variables involved to properly control them and get proper conclusions, and too many ethical issues with some of the studies that would be needed to improve upon that. That leads to a series of less-incorrect conclusions and less-misleading theories, so I wouldn't be surprised to find there were some studies that initially supported the idea of rewarding participation. More likely, however, the results were overgeneralized and misapplied in the expression to the general population (the biggest problem with most pop-science articles), leading to unsupported conclusions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But who is doing that???

Where are these morons rewarding a lack of effort at every step in a child's life???

We only ever see snippets; snapshots of a life yet we think we know it all.
One school sports day or karate grading is not the sum total of a grown adults emotional and social education.

What you do with a 5 year old or 7 year old is not what happens with a 10 yr old or 13 yr old. How the parents build on those experiences and the lessons they teach their children are much much more important than whether a child, who can see full well that he's lost the race, gets a participation award.

The whole premise of this thread is baloney and this is why (besides the fact that parenting matters . The hard austere beat your kids into shape with repeated minor emotional trauma philosophy happened. And it produced a generation of parents who according to you are self entitled and who dont think their kids should have to work for anything. They have rejected it in favour of softer more emotionally friendly methods.

We're it the self evidently superior way it would have produced parents who had no interest in ensuring rewards that weren't earned and perpetuated it's self to the next generation and been reinforced by the advances in behavioural science and child psychology.

Yet that's not what happened.

You're actually saying the same thing I did, Dave, with only one difference I can perceive. You're making the assumption that the parents are not part of the problem. In many cases - observable in public places - they are. So, if a series of teachers (doesn't take many - just a few in a row), some activity leaders, and the parents all fail to let them experience failure, reward them for any level of participation, etc., then that may be enough to dilute the effect of more useful reward systems. It doesn't have to be universal. And it is harder to fix once the child has begun to build a paradigm based on those rewards, so what happens at 10 may not be as important as what happens at 6.

EDIT: Oh, and the "hard austere" bit serves as a strawman here. Nobody suggested that model.

 

[DaveB]

You're actually saying the same thing I did, Dave, with only one difference I can perceive. You're making the assumption that the parents are not part of the problem. In many cases - observable in public places - they are. So, if a series of teachers (doesn't take many - just a few in a row), some activity leaders, and the parents all fail to let them experience failure, reward them for any level of participation, etc., then that may be enough to dilute the effect of more useful reward systems. It doesn't have to be universal. And it is harder to fix once the child has begun to build a paradigm based on those rewards, so what happens at 10 may not be as important as what happens at 6.

EDIT: Oh, and the "hard austere" bit serves as a strawman here. Nobody suggested that model.

Straw man is a bit strong. An exagerated description, sure. But however you describe the previous model, it's certainly implied in the OP that this is a modern problem not had in the good old days. And so the point still stands: whatever was done in the good old days is what produced these entitled parents who mislead their kids by not letting them get hurt through losing and demand rewards without effort.

And you may not like my connecting these attitudes to the creeping rot of nazi-ism on the right, but no sooner had I posted than Hoshin put up videos all but confirming it with a right wing speaker telling us why it was completely natural for women not to get equal pay and rolling right into intelligence decides our place in the world; which if you follow these discussions enough you will see leads into - different races have different intelligence so have different places in society... America destroyed the Nazi's but failed to weed out the corruption that lets their ideas flourish.

As to the other stuff, I feel that positions like this one about participation awards thrive on the vagueness and undefined nature of the discussion. That's one of the reasons I brought in my own experience, because it's easy to shake your fist at a shadowy bogeyman and blame him for everything. But shine a torch on him you'll see it's just an old tree in shadow and the stuff you thought was going wrong isn't. Or at least its not because of the tree.

Part of why my position might be more unique on this is that I'm from a colonial minority background. My parents generation believed very much in hard work, in fact we were told we needed to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. Feelings we're things to be kept in check and the cultural hang ups of being an immigrant were many.

But my generation are realising that much of what we took as culture were simply the survival tools of oppressed people. So we look to those in more privileged lives and see that actually a sense of entitlement is intrinsic to them. It stops them accepting second best in life. Allows them to take risks that most poor people would not dare because success is an expectation not a hope. And while we can't replicate the nepotism and networks that boost the wealthy along we can teach our kids not to fear. Not to be overwhelmed by the need to work twice as hard because you are already better than the competition (what can i say, my son is awesome) and you need only work hard enough to show it. That success is a function of determination and that coming last in every race is not a reason to quit, because look: you got something out of it afterall.

 

[Steve]

"Kids these days" is definitely part of the problem - meaning part of what we (us, the non-kids) see is just our perception. But there is evidence in psychological research to support the premise that there's a larger problem in this area than in the past.

Well, for what it's worth, I see a lack of resikience in a lot of millennials, but they're all adults now. Kids these days seem to be course correcting.

And I'm still not convinced that participation ribbons are the root cause.

 

[jobo]

Straw man is a bit strong. An exagerated description, sure. But however you describe the previous model, it's certainly implied in the OP that this is a modern problem not had in the good old days. And so the point still stands: whatever was done in the good old days is what produced these entitled parents who mislead their kids by not letting them get hurt through losing and demand rewards without effort.

And you may not like my connecting these attitudes to the creeping rot of nazi-ism on the right, but no sooner had I posted than Hoshin put up videos all but confirming it with a right wing speaker telling us why it was completely natural for women not to get equal pay and rolling right into intelligence decides our place in the world; which if you follow these discussions enough you will see leads into - different races have different intelligence so have different places in society... America destroyed the Nazi's but failed to weed out the corruption that lets their ideas flourish.

As to the other stuff, I feel that positions like this one about participation awards thrive on the vagueness and undefined nature of the discussion. That's one of the reasons I brought in my own experience, because it's easy to shake your fist at a shadowy bogeyman and blame him for everything. But shine a torch on him you'll see it's just an old tree in shadow and the stuff you thought was going wrong isn't. Or at least its not because of the tree.

Part of why my position might be more unique on this is that I'm from a colonial minority background. My parents generation believed very much in hard work, in fact we were told we needed to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. Feelings we're things to be kept in check and the cultural hang ups of being an immigrant were many.

But my generation are realising that much of what we took as culture were simply the survival tools of oppressed people. So we look to those in more privileged lives and see that actually a sense of entitlement is intrinsic to them. It stops them accepting second best in life. Allows them to take risks that most poor people would not dare because success is an expectation not a hope. And while we can't replicate the nepotism and networks that boost the wealthy along we can teach our kids not to fear. Not to be overwhelmed by the need to work twice as hard because you are already better than the competition (what can i say, my son is awesome) and you need only work hard enough to show it. That success is a function of determination and that coming last in every race is not a reason to quit, because look: you got something out of it afterall.

that's an excellent post Dave, I agree with every last word

 

[CB Jones]

Donald Trump.

George w Bush.

Cara Delevigne.

The entire British government.

Who you know and the home you were born into are huge predictors of success.

The intelligence thing falls down at societies top level. A caveat often forgotten when quoted by the political right.

All of which are intelligent people claiming otherwise is just ridiculous and is just your showing bias against them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Straw man is a bit strong. An exagerated description, sure. But however you describe the previous model, it's certainly implied in the OP that this is a modern problem not had in the good old days. And so the point still stands: whatever was done in the good old days is what produced these entitled parents who mislead their kids by not letting them get hurt through losing and demand rewards without effort.

And you may not like my connecting these attitudes to the creeping rot of nazi-ism on the right, but no sooner had I posted than Hoshin put up videos all but confirming it with a right wing speaker telling us why it was completely natural for women not to get equal pay and rolling right into intelligence decides our place in the world; which if you follow these discussions enough you will see leads into - different races have different intelligence so have different places in society... America destroyed the Nazi's but failed to weed out the corruption that lets their ideas flourish.

As to the other stuff, I feel that positions like this one about participation awards thrive on the vagueness and undefined nature of the discussion. That's one of the reasons I brought in my own experience, because it's easy to shake your fist at a shadowy bogeyman and blame him for everything. But shine a torch on him you'll see it's just an old tree in shadow and the stuff you thought was going wrong isn't. Or at least its not because of the tree.

Part of why my position might be more unique on this is that I'm from a colonial minority background. My parents generation believed very much in hard work, in fact we were told we needed to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. Feelings we're things to be kept in check and the cultural hang ups of being an immigrant were many.

But my generation are realising that much of what we took as culture were simply the survival tools of oppressed people. So we look to those in more privileged lives and see that actually a sense of entitlement is intrinsic to them. It stops them accepting second best in life. Allows them to take risks that most poor people would not dare because success is an expectation not a hope. And while we can't replicate the nepotism and networks that boost the wealthy along we can teach our kids not to fear. Not to be overwhelmed by the need to work twice as hard because you are already better than the competition (what can i say, my son is awesome) and you need only work hard enough to show it. That success is a function of determination and that coming last in every race is not a reason to quit, because look: you got something out of it afterall.

An exaggeration of an opposing argument to make it easier to argue against is precisely what a strawman is. If you seriously think all privileged people actually refuse to accept second-best in life, you're applying a very aggressive stereotype to that group of people. I grew up around people who were far more privileged (and wealthy, in some cases) than me, and many (not all) of their parents required they work hard and they didn't always get the very best stuff, because it wasn't always necessary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, for what it's worth, I see a lack of resikience in a lot of millennials, but they're all adults now. Kids these days seem to be course correcting.

Agreed. "Kids" are much older than they were when I was 20. (EDIT FOR CLARITY: Millenials are the group usually referenced in studies of this.)

And I'm still not convinced that participation ribbons are the root cause.

I'd say they're a symptom of the root cause, and contributors, not the root cause, itself. It goes much deeper than just that.

 

[DaveB]

An exaggeration of an opposing argument to make it easier to argue against is precisely what a strawman is. If you seriously think all privileged people actually refuse to accept second-best in life, you're applying a very aggressive stereotype to that group of people. I grew up around people who were far more privileged (and wealthy, in some cases) than me, and many (not all) of their parents required they work hard and they didn't always get the very best stuff, because it wasn't always necessary.

Then what you write here about my post is equally a straw man.

 

[DaveB]

All of which are intelligent people claiming otherwise is just ridiculous and is just your showing bias against them.

Sigh.

It was intelligence that got trump elected?
The man can barely string a sentence together. That has nothing to do with bias, there are studies on it.

Anyway their intelligence is beside the point. Their careers were all about the families they were born into and claiming otherwise is equally ridiculous.

Being coached through every test by private tutors and as is the case with British gov, being handed places in top universities because you went to the right school, or as with GW Bush, getting to Harvard because your dad went, will do wonders for your perceived intellect.

 

[CB Jones]

Sigh.

It was intelligence that got trump elected?
The man can barely string a sentence together. That has nothing to do with bias, there are studies on it.

Anyway their intelligence is beside the point. Their careers were all about the families they were born into and claiming otherwise is equally ridiculous.

Being coached through every test by private tutors and as is the case with British gov, being handed places in top universities because you went to the right school, or as with GW Bush, getting to Harvard because your dad went, will do wonders for your perceived intellect.

We will agree to disagree then and leave it at that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then what you write here about my post is equally a straw man.

What I referred to was a statement you actually made, as I read it - no exaggeration intended. If the meaning I took wasn't what you meant, then we've had a miscommunication.

 

[Tez3]

we were told we needed to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. Feelings we're things to be kept in check and the cultural hang ups of being an immigrant were many.

I remember being told that by our female officer when I joined the RAf, she said as women we had to work harder just to be thought ok.

just your showing bias against them.

There is a huge bias against the government here. if we had proportional representation they wouldn't be in government.

I grew up around people who were far more privileged (and wealthy, in some cases) than me, and many (not all) of their parents required they work hard and they didn't always get the very best stuff, because it wasn't always necessary.

I think your privileged are a bit different from ours though, we have many who have been privileged for centuries and have amassed wealth, power and influence that is worldwide. If ever there really was a secret world society that controls everything it most likely would be the Etonian Old boys network, monarchs, political leaders, high ranking military, churchmen, philosophers, professors, bankers you name it there will be an Old Etonian at the top somewhere. Our Public Schools (you pay to go and it's horribly expensive) are very exclusive and have the ethos that they are born to rule and control the world, they train the pupils to be leaders. The first Public schools date from the 5th century, Eton came along in the 15th. Privilege in the UK even today doesn't mean to be rich as much as to be titled and to have influence. The Beckhams are rich but they will always be working class, the titled Lady who lives up by me in a big castle is actually quite poor but she's not just upper class but also privileged because she is aristocracy. She doesn't have to deal with a lot of problems other less well off people have to deal with because she's titled. She also has influence because she's a member of the House of Lords. We have families here in the UK that haven't worked for centuries.
While the UK doesn't have such a class divide as it used to, it is still there and it's very different from any class separation in the US. Privilege here isn't so much about wealth but very much about power and influence.

 

[DaveB]

What I referred to was a statement you actually made, as I read it - no exaggeration intended. If the meaning I took wasn't what you meant, then we've had a miscommunication.

You didn't read the word all in my post, so yes, exaggeration.

 

[DaveB]

We will agree to disagree then and leave it at that.

Agree that your comment on intelligence was completely beside the point? Sure.

 

[Headhunter]

All of which are intelligent people claiming otherwise is just ridiculous and is just your showing bias against them.

Now I've heard it all when someone calls donald trump an intelligent individual...he's so smart he went bankrupt a few million times lol

 

[Headhunter]

Well this threads totally derailed it's become a row over American politics which I no pretty much 0 about apart from what I see on the news about what stupid stuff donald trump says on twitter

 

[CB Jones]

Now I've heard it all when someone calls donald trump an intelligent individual...he's so smart he went bankrupt a few million times lol

Look I don't like Trump either but to pretend he isn't intelligent is plain silly.

If you don't like his opinions or politics or antics that is fine but the fact is he is still intelligent.

 

[jobo]

Now I've heard it all when someone calls donald trump an intelligent individual...he's so smart he went bankrupt a few million times lol

he went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay back the money he owed, there nothing stupid about that,

he has an IQ of 160 I believe,that's quite high, ln case you didn't know

 

[Headhunter]

Look I don't like Trump either but to pretend he isn't intelligent is plain silly.

If you don't like his opinions or politics or antics that is fine but the fact is he is still intelligent.

Haha no he's a total idiot who doesn't have a clue about anything...all I can say is if I was American I'd be out of there quick