Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Mannerisms


I enjoy studying communication patterns of individuals and picking up their tendencies. Tendencies may include go to phrases or crutch words. Patterns also develop culturally. Culture can be defined by companies, groups of friends, families. Many times sayings or stories are frequently used among a particular group and become specific to their culture. Other tendencies are broader. I wouldn't necessarily call them regional or national, although they could be. They could also be considered a function of the era in which we live.

One item I've increasingly picked up on is people's lack of responding to questions they are asked. Pay attention carefully to someone's response the next time you ask them a question. Do they answer your question? Do they add information beyond answering your question? Do they replace the answer to your question with other information? Do they answer your question with a question?

Motivations can include simplicity for the responder, avoidance of the question, misunderstanding of the question, or a desire to help the questioner. But regardless, the end result is not answering the question that is asked. I find that tendency very curious. Curious both in how frequently and unexpectedly it happens as well as how accustomed we have become to it happening.

2 specific examples of late:

1. I asked Sheila last night what she wanted to do for dinner. She responded by asking what I wanted to do for dinner. When I asked again she shared her plan for what she was fixing for the girls. The third time I asked she offered to make a ravioli dish that we both enjoy. 0-3 on answering my question.

2. Brothers 3 are scheduling a time to catch up on the phone. I asked what works for everyone. Both responded with what didn't work. Not the answer to the question asked.

What does it mean? Not sure.

Is it bad? Sometimes, but not usually.

Is it efficient? Absolutely not.

Solution for the questioner? Ask more effective and specific questions. Ask the questions to which you want an answer, not superfluous or leading questions.

Solution for the responder? Don't assume you know that something else is desired other than the answer to the question. Don't dodge the question, if you are asked then answer.

That is all.

Monday, April 6, 2015

My "Wisconsin is NOT a Cinderella" rant

I have a good friend who was born and raised in Wisconsin.  He is without a doubt the biggest Wisconsin sports fan that I've ever met.  He's a nut.  I went to sea with him last year and we had many Big Ten sports conversations.

When Wisconsin beat Kentucky, he was absolutely gushing.  He talked of it as if Kennedy's Super Valu brought down Costco.  I disagreed, as I mentioned in my earlier Calipari post.  For your amusement, here is the somewhat lengthy text of what I posted about the Badgers on FB in regards to that conversation.

MY FRIEND'S ORIGINAL POST:  38-1. Today the TEAM won over the arguably best collection of individual talent ever assembled. With it's 9 McDonald's All-Americans and a perfect season, Kentucky was everybody's trendy favorite pick. But if you saw anything about Badgers' accomplishments this season, you knew this is a toughest, most hard nosed team our state has ever produced, who BELIEVED in themselves from day one.  And this is why they play the game...  

MARC:  I'm surprised that Wisconsin has managed to take on this underdog persona. Everyone is so amazed that a #1 seed is in the final! They started out the season ranked #3, quickly moved to #2, and were never lower than #6 I think. They have been an absolute powerhouse all season. All due credit for beating Kentucky, but this is NOT the David and Goliath story people are making it out to be. It was a battle of the Giants, and Wisconsin came out on top. I was hoping for an all big ten final, but Duke was just too good for that.

MY FRIEND'S RESPONSE:  As always, when it comes to anything non-Iowa, you are completely WRONG  While it's absolutely true that this Badgers was a well respected team who should have been given more credit for what we have accomplished, Kentucky was making a HISTORIC run that was unparalleled to anything that was accomplished in college since UNLV'S dominance of early 90s. As a matter of fact it was only done 4 times ever. Therefore saying it was a battle of Giants, or equal teams is to diminish Wisconsin ' s accomplishment and magnitude of this victory. They changed history yesterday and took down a team that NUMEROUS people called "unbeatable" and arguably best ever.

MARC:  Mr. Lobanov, this is not NCAA women's basketball where there is a chasm between the number one team and everyone else. Wisconsin began the season ranked NUMBER TWO, RIGHT BEHIND KENTUCKY. Don't kid yourself. They are a NUMBER ONE SEED. If you need to call it "historic" as if Wisconsin is a David and Kentucky was a Goliath - well, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Wisconsin lost three frickin' games this year: one to the team they are playing in the national championship game, one by five points, and one by six points to a ranked team. Currently there is a two-game difference between Kentucky and Wisconsin. Whoa, how historic! A three-loss team makes it ALL the way to the national championship! Holy crap!  

Oh, I'm just getting warmed up... Wisconsin played four ranked teams this year. They lost to Duke, who is also a #1 seed and they are playing in the finals. They beat Iowa (ranked #25 at the time, made the round of 32), lost to Maryland (ranked #14 at the time, made the round of 32) and beat Ohio state (ranked #23 at the time, made the round of 32). By the way, both of the wins against Iowa and Ohio State were by 32 and 24 points respectively - we call that getting your ass kicked in Iowa. For Wisconsin you can include TWO regular season wins over MSU, who made the final four by beating the 2, 3, and 4 seeds in their quarter of the bracket, including Louisville, who is one of the ranked teams that Kentucky beat this year (more on that later). Wisconsin also had regular season wins against Georgetown (4 seed, round of 32) and Oklahoma (3 seed, round of 16), and beat UNC in the tournament, who is one of the ranked teams that Kentucky beat this year (yes, there is still more coming!)  

Now let's look at Kentucky... when you start out the season as the #1, unless you lose, it's unlikely you'll ever drop from that spot, right? So yeah, they were #1 all year. They started off the year with a big win over KU (ranked #5 at the time). But then let's look at their other wins over ranked opponents. Texas? They barely squeaked into the tournament with a #11 seed and didn't get out of the first round. UNC? Wisconsin beat them too. Louisville? They beat them in December and only by 8 points. And then two wins against Arkansas? The Razorbacks were a #5 seed and only won their first game of the tournament before bowing out to UNC. Arkansas only played two ranked teams all year (Iowa State and Kentucky) and lost them both. Wow, those were signature wins for Kentucky over those DANGEROUS Razorbacks... not!)

My point is that if you look at the numbers and look at the schedules, Wisconsin is as good a team as Kentucky if not better. You can say "but Kentucky has better players" all day long - it doesn't mean anything. As far as I know, the NBA doesn't give the O'Brien trophy to the team that happens to have the NBA scoring leader or the league MVP. Individual talent doesn't have anything to do with it. Individual talent on the roster doesn't mean that Kentucky was a better TEAM. I'm not trying to take anything away from Wisconsin. In fact, my whole point is that Wisconsin IS an incredible team! It's excellent PR work on behalf of the Badgers that they've somehow convinced the sporting world that David slew the giant again. I would like to know how many people picked Wisconsin and Duke in the final. I bet that it's more than you think. I believe that had Duke played Kentucky in the semifinals, Duke would have beat them. Okay, I have to rest my fingers now.

MY FRIEND'S RESPONSE:  Wow Marc Baldwin. I never thought I would get you to say so many GREAT THINGS about Wisconsin

MARC:  Go Big Ten! (Remember, I'm a true CONFERENCE fan, unlike you)

Youth athletics and parental support - the email chain

Below is the discussion in which we were engaged stemming from an email Sheila and I received from a youth soccer program leader. Enjoy!

------------------

From: Jon Cook
Subject: Information for Parents

ISC Academy Soccer Parents,

I have attached a 2 page document that I have put together for parents to read that I hope will help give you some guidelines as to what realistic expectations should be for your kids with soccer at this age. Most of you are returning parents so you have read this before, so I will summarize the purpose of this e-mail.

Most good directors of any sports program for kids 4-6 year of age are going to tell the parents in the program to keep things positive, let the kids play without parental coaching, and be patient and realistic with your expectations with your kids.

These are all things that I 100% agree with. However, just telling parents to be positive and patient sometimes just doesn't work with all parents. Therefore, what I really am trying to do is to give some more concrete reasons as to why you should be patient and what you should be patient about in terms of what a typical 4-6 year old can do on the soccer field. In putting together a summary of what realistic expectations are for the 4-6 year old soccer player, I have tried to come at this from two ways.

First, I have a wealth of experience with coaching kids at this age. I have run the ISC for the past 16 years. We run the Academy in the fall and spring every year. This is the 32nd Academy that I have been in charge of for the ISC. Moreover, I don't simply oversee the program and communicate with parents, I am at all of the practices with one of the age groups each season. Therefore, I have seen first hand what most kids can and cannot do at this age. I have also seen the frustration in parents who expect their 4-6 year old to play at a level that is simply beyond what even the most talented and advanced kids at this age typically are capable of. By putting together a brief overview of the limitations 4-6 year olds have in regard to soccer, I hope parents will be able to let their kids play and give them the freedom to make mistakes, have fun, and enjoy their time without feeling like they are letting their parents down in any way.

Second, I have tried to draw not only from my own experiences coaching but also from research in other areas. There are a number of people with the United States Soccer Federation that have applied the insight of educational experts regarding the stages of cognitive development to how those factors affect how kids play sports at the youngest ages. I find this fascinating to see how research related to the stages of cognitive development can help influence how to set realistic guidelines for kids in sports. This is important because if we have realistic guidelines for kids, we make sports more fun for kids and we keep kids active and healthy for many years to come. While this research is certainly not exhaustive on the part of US Soccer and definitely not on my part, some of these insights can be very helpful.

If you get nothing else from this e-mail, please adhere to my request to refrain from parent coaching at practices. It is expected that parents stay at practice for kids at this age, but we want you to let the kids play without providing critique or instructions. It's likely that you have played or even have a lot of soccer knowledge to impart with your child. However, that's not the point. Let this be something that your son or daughter does on their own with your unconditional support. I highly encourage you to read the article from the link below. Based on the surveys taken from former athletes, what kids really want to hear you say when practice is over, has nothing to do with reliving the mistakes or plays in the game or giving them more advice, the kids want to hear you say "I love to watch you play."

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/more-family-fun/201202/what-makes-nightmare-sports-parent

Thanks and I hope you have a great season watching your child play and I hope your child has fun at the Academy tomorrow night.

Jon Cook
ISC Coaching Director

-----------------

Guys,

I thought you both would find this email and document interesting as it pertains to a topic we’ve discussed on and off over time: youth sports. Sasha did “rec” soccer last year and this year she is doing “club”. It isn’t really a club in terms of amplified competitiveness, rather focused on conscious instruction v. a free for all we’ve experienced in muni rec leagues. We were referred to this group from another family we know whose kids have enjoyed ISC.

Brad

-----------------

Wow, I'm a bad parent in this respect. I/we (Holly and I) resemble the bad more than the good. I'm forwarding this to Holly to read as well.

Thanks for sharing Brad.

Ed

------------------

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much Ed. I think the most interesting part for me is that someone is actually taking the cognitive development level of the kids into consideration and adjusting the coaching style appropriately.

Thanks for humoring me by the way. Whenever I try to add anything to a parenting discussion I usually get dirty looks. I realize that most of this is "theory" to me. You guys know way better than I do.

Having said that, I'm one of those people that want to roll my eyes when I hear a parent trying to reason with a 3-year-old, trying to get them to understand second and third level effects of their actions. Oddly enough when of the most valuable things that I remember from my two years at MBI in Chicago was my course on educational development. We talked at length about the learning styles required for different stages of cognitive development.

So, back to soccer. It totally makes sense to me and sounds like a great idea. And then there's the ACTUAL watching on the sideline and keeping your mouth shut. I can only imagine that it's easier to say than do for most parents.

I like the tone of it all, which is making it enjoyable for the kids so that they stick with it for the long haul. You've heard my rant on that too many times so I'll just stop right there.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but moving from rec to club, I'm curious what the difference is in the monetary investment.

Interesting stuff for sure.

Marc

-------------------

I echo what Marc said, I don’t think this should be a reflection on you Ed. I think the real key here is how detailed and proactive they are about articulating both the expectations for parents as well as their background and approach to teaching kids at this age. The expectation setting is so good here and I think it is a huge disservice to parents not to take this approach. I think there are two aspects of their model I find interesting:

First, I doubt most youth program leaders are this detailed in their understanding of youth development. I assume the overwhelming majority are either parents with some background in the sport or college kids doing a part time or summer job. While the parental volunteerism is admirable and the lack of experience of a college kid is understandable, it inevitably leads to a gap between the expectations of a child and their parents compared to the outcomes provided by the program.

Second, I think many youth sports programs are communicating, and it is articulated generally that bad parental behavior is not desired. But what specific direction is actually given to parents? The universe of poor parental behavior would be much smaller (although not eliminated) if every coach/leader/league clearly set expectations for parents and was explicit about communicating those expectations. Also, and for me this is really impactful, the detail behind the request and how harmful undesired behavior can be on the child, their development, and their enjoyment. How many parents would still actively model poor behaviors if they knew they would have this impact on their children? It would be very small, although once again probably not eliminated.

The last piece I think this allows is for parents who are looking for a different approach to select away from this club. If they want their children to be in a more competitive situation at this stage I’m sure they can find it. And this proactive information gives that parent the knowledge they need to make that decision if they feel it best for them.

To be realistic, the ISC develops into a traditional and competitive club team. If you look at their website and read about the U12-18 programs, they are clear (and unapologetic) that they are year round and competitive. So I don’t want to paint the picture otherwise. But similarly, they are very explicit in terms of their approach and model which gives parents the correct expectation and the information they need to opt out if that isn’t for them. The expectation setting is admirable and very appreciated by this parent.

Marc, in terms of expense, it is more expensive but not burdensome. Perhaps $50-$75 more for a season. Once again, when you get to the competitive levels it is $1,000+ for fees and gear. That doesn’t account for travel expenses. But the girls are 4 and 6 so we aren’t there yet.

Brad










Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Answer Machine

Nice post on the phone Brad.  I watched the semifinal games last night with a Navy friend that I served with back in Spain from 1990-1992.  Whenever I see him, we naturally reminisce about those days, the days before cell phones and internet.

He and I were on the same watch team and it was a rotation with 12-hour shifts.  One of the things that we talked about last night was how many of those long 12-hour mid shifts we passed by arguing and debating the most innate and stupid things.  Those days were pre-internet and pre-smart phones.  You can't have those kind of debates anymore.  You could pass a lot of time back then by arguing about stuff, because there wasn't really a way to prove who was right.

The "answer machine" has taken away those days.  Back then, if someone said, "Michigan has won more college football national championships than Alabama," there might be a 90-minute debate about which team has won the most.  But now, the minute that question pops up, someone pulls out a phone and has a definitive answer in about 30 seconds.

There is certainly no lack of debate these days, and for some reason I think it tends to be more  emotional.  I am speculating here but I wonder if that is because most of the debating these days is on subjective issues.  If it's objective, we have the answers, so it ends quickly.  Data can be interpreted to say a what you want it to say, so my speculation isn't true across the board obviously, but data interpretation is another topic for another day.  I just finished the book Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking).  Pretty fascinating.

It is somewhat odd to call it a phone.  Actually calling people on our PDA, palm computer, or whatever you choose to call it, is probably the least-used function.  What do you guys use your phone for the most?  Not necessarily in the order of percentage of usage, but I use it to text, email, listen to music, get directions (map function), read (kindle app), play games (Ruzzle and Jump Car), check the weather, track bike rides (Strava app), take pictures, check Yelp reviews, pay for Starbucks, identify birds (iBird Pro app), listen to podcasts, check FB, and oh yeah... I occasionally talk to people on the phone too.

Check out this old clip from Conan O'Brien when the iPhone was first released.  A bit prophetic?

Like him or not...

I should wait a week or two to post this, because I realize he's still the head of the hated and villainized giant carcass that's rotting on the front lawn, but I thought these were valid comments about why guys are leaving college so early to go to the NBA.

I agree with him - there's not much incentive to stay in college.

As a side note, on the one hand, I'm glad that Wisconsin won, because I didn't want a repeat of the Seattle/New England Superbowl where a majority of the country wanted them both to lose.  Plus I generally root for the Big Ten.  It was tough to watch Michigan St. get shellacked last night.

On the other hand, I feel sorry for Duke.  I can't quite figure out how Wisconsin got ahold of Cinderella's tiara, because they are a #1 seed for God's sake!  But no matter, they've managed to take on the underdog persona.  So now Duke is going to have to play the role of the big bad villain.  It's interesting considering that Wisconsin started out the season ranked higher than Duke, and they were side-by-side in the rankings for most of it.  Wisconsin is NOT an underdog, and considering that they just took down undefeated Kentucky, Duke should be playing the part of the underdog, not Wisconsin.  But hey, no one is EVER going to feel sorry for Duke, that's for sure.  They are a perennial college basketball powerhouse.