THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
Beware of the media!
No, this isn't anything political. This is a wake-up call to how the media uses our self-esteem to play on how we receive stories in the business of making money. How many times have you seen a movie where a character or a team had to overcome an obstacle or obstacles to find a victory? Have you noticed that the number of obstacles is directly related to how good you feel after the big climax in the plot? And how many of these situations revolve around a sports movie? Most people find themselves rooting for the character(s) to succeed because they project themselves onto that group trying to overcome the odds to win the day. And perhaps that's the goal of the transaction of paying for entertainment: I give you $15 to go see a movie, and I want that movie to entertain me for two hours. But we should beware! This should not be a substitute or a model for our own lives. Our self-esteem shouldn't correlate to a movie, whether it be due to our projection and investment into the plot or due to our demand for entertainment. Further, our demand for these movies should reveal how actual competition does not fulfill our needs.
0 Comments
Is self-esteem conditional? It shouldn't be.
Our psychological health should be unconditional. It shouldn't be dependent on our experiences with wins and losses. Losing, which happens more often than winning and can have a direct connection with low self-esteem, is an inherent part of competition. So why do we let it affect our self-esteem if it is actually more common than we realize? But the bigger question to ask is this: is there reason to think that competition is always psychologically damaging to some degree? If losing has the possibility of dragging us down, does winning have the possibility of uplifting us beyond what should feel good? The rush of winning can lift us beyond our normal level of high self-esteem, almost to the point of looking down on our rivals. There's nothing wrong with winning or enjoying it, but it stands to reason that it has the same potential that losing does to affect our psychological health. No matter the situation or the outcome, our psyche should have little to no connection to the result or outcome of a competition. It's okay to like winning, and it's okay to be a little down when you lose. But put it in context of these discussions to make sure you still are okay with yourself! We continue our discussion on self-esteem by examining one thing: anticipation.
If you've ever heard the saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall," then you can relate to this direct connection. The higher the stakes, the harder it is to accept losing. The more we invest, the more we can potentially lose. Ultimately, the more importance we put on winning, the more destructive is losing. Sometimes, the investment in success comes naturally. If our team makes it to the Super Bowl, where one game of 60 minutes of football determines the champion of the NFL for that season, we naturally put a lot of importance on winning that particular game because we are so close to the championship. But if our team loses, does that mean our team failed to have a successful season? Does that mean our investment in the team reflects upon us and should lower our self-esteem? What furthers this is the anticipation of losing. When we put so much emphasis and importance on winning, we naturally build up an anticipation of the possibility of not succeeding as well. This anticipation contributes to the problem: we can't possibly bear to lose, for if we do, it will be a catastrophe! Failure is a natural part of life. Disappointment is inevitable. We can be sad we didn't win. We can be frustrated as well. But perhaps it should never rise to a level where it becomes unreasonable or unsafe. In our continued discussion on self-esteem and how it relates to sportsmanship and competition, consider the following:
Why does losing lead to poor self-esteem? Well, perhaps it is because most competitors lose most of the time! Think about it statistically. The best probability is a 50/50 chance when the competition consists of two teams (or just competitors). So when competitions increase to more than just two competitors, the odds change and each team has a better chance to lose than to win; that probability of losing directly increases as the number of competitors increases. As such, people who compete are exposed to much more failure than success, whether it be athletics or a simple contest. Further, this is just a macro view of failure being rampant in competition. Specific examples such as the science (or art) of hitting in baseball drive the point home. The best hitters in baseball, on average, get a hit three out of every ten times they come up to bat. That means that the greats who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame failed seven out of every ten times! If people feel the need to prove themselves worthy by winning, they're in for a rude awakening. The worst thing we can do is attach our self-esteem to whether we win or lose at any competition. The next few weeks will dive into a discussion about competition and its relationship with self-esteem.
We live in a society and a culture where we set benchmarks and expectations in the social arena. It's not even about who makes the most money or who is the most successful in life. Instead, it's about whether you have moved out of your parents' home, whether you've found a partner, started a family, etc., and having accomplished all of these things as quickly as possible. The person who lives on his own at 21 years old is apparently more successful than the person who lives with his parents at 35 years old in the competition of life. This relates to the idea of independence vs. dependency. The person who is able to support himself and do everything without the help of others is, according to the above standard, winning. The person who needs the assistance of others is losing. It's not an exact science: surely, there are people who are taking advantage of the system. But in a vacuum, we are judging others (even subconsciously) based on accomplishments rather than character. Not only is this line of thought a fallacy based on moral judgment, but now it has scientific evidence. Studies show that cooperation (dependency) actually leave people feeling better about themselves, as opposed to the alternative of competition (independence). Cooperation promotes control within oneself, whereas competition does the opposite. As such, people who work with others (as opposed to against them) find themselves feeling more in control of their own lives. So if the goal is to be in control of your own life, the solution is not to compete within society to meet those standard benchmarks of independence, but rather to cooperate and accept the necessity of dependence in certain areas. After all, don't we rely on others to do things for us in order to allow us to be successful? I don't have the ability to dry clean my clothes, compound my own prescriptions, or perform all four parts of my jazz quartet; I depend on others to do those for me. The sooner we accept dependency and cooperation as the way of life (as opposed to life being a competition to gain independence as soon as possible), the more independent we will actually be. If you look at the coaching tree that sprouts from Bill Walsh and Mike Holmgren within the confines of the NFL, you'll see a lot of recognizable names.
One thing you may not know, however, is a pretty interesting thought passed from Walsh to Holmgren regarding how to properly coach your team. Walsh made it a point to tell Holmgren about the importance of moral as it flows from the coach to the player(s). You can spend all of practice yelling at your team, but when practice is over, the most important thing a coach can do is to make sure you tell each player something good about them. The players need to walk off the field with a good feeling, knowing that their coaches support them and that all the work from practice will be worth it. The sad part is that this type of love is not always remembered by a large chunk of coaches, especially at younger or lesser levels. How many high school coaches berate their kids in order to try to guarantee that championship? How many college coaches run their kids into the ground because they think the sport is more important than the studies? How many minor league coaches use it as a way to weed out the pure professionals? This is just another testament to the importance of psychology in sports. This isn't to say that practice shouldn't be tough or demanding, but players (especially younger players) need to know that their superiors recognize their hard work. If more players felt this kind of love, imagine how positive the results could be on game day! Referee Magazine recently published an article about what the best officials keep doing. The article made a point to define what the author meant by this, but it essentially came down to the fact that the best officials never stop getting better, nor do they become complacent with "arriving" at the top of their game.
It's something of a natural reaction for us to take a step back and a deep breath when we finally reach the pinnacle of our journey. When the end of the school year arrives, we usually don't spend the next day doing homework! And in theory, not only is there really nothing wrong with this, it can be significantly healthy for us to take a step back and relax. But like everything else in life, when we stop using a skill, a muscle, or a part of our brain for a significant period of time, we can forget how to use it. It's similar to how we might forget how to get somewhere if we haven't been there in a while. And officials can't let themselves do that. The real point, though, is not so much about reaching the end of the physical year, but rather the top of the profession. When the baseball season ends, umpires don't look for another opportunity to strap on the gear and work the plate. They cherish the time they have at home, relaxing, spending time with their families, etc. But the good officials realize that even if they're the oldest, longest tenured officials with the most important assignments, they have to maintain that level and continue to get better, rather than "throw their weight around." The job of the official is to start out perfect, then get better from there. Think about that for a second...that sounds like something Yogi Berra would say! But it's true. No matter your profession, remember that complacency at the top opens up an avenue for someone beneath you to usurp your glory. Sports Psychology is a subject that can easily be misconstrued. Heck, psychology is a subject that is still misconstrued. There is still a faction of people that hear psychology with a bad connotation, completely ignorant to the fact that it is a valuable field of science that can benefit every human.
More athletes than we realize probably suffer from some sort of mental "game" that affects their on-field performance from time to time. We only see them through the television set as entertainers, so it's easy to miss the fact that humans are playing these games, not robots. In a recent article by Megan Ryan for the Star Tribune, a few cases were examined of just that: professionals who were suffering, only to find some help that turned their game around. Baseball players, hockey players, and basketball players are just a sample of the professional athletes who work on their mental game beyond what we just think (such as game focus and planning). They focus on their fear of failure, the fight/flight/freeze reaction, and the burdens they each may be carrying with them from their past. These factors can be the difference between balls and strikes, baskets made and missed, and pucks that may or may not find the back of the net, even when the burden may rest miles away from the field. And yet, some teams still don't employ professionals to handle this type of issue (or at least contract them to help on an as-needed basis). Is it due to the fear these athletes may have in being chastised for admitting their faults or shortcomings? Is it a masculinity issue? Or are they afraid they may lose their jobs? We may be a far way away from some major breakthroughs in this field, but we've made some significant strides thus far. It would be a shame to refuse to accept these medical findings as valid and important in our athletic journeys. We've all been there. We've all reacted the same way. And that's perfectly okay.
I'm talking about when you become a bench player...a reserve player...a role player...a member of the ensemble cast/chorus... Okay, you get the point. But one of the toughest things with which we each must deal at some point in our lives is playing a part of the supporting cast in some operation, especially when we feel we have the talent to be the lead. In sports, it happens all too frequently. You can only have so many starting players, so a platoon of reserves are kept on the sidelines in case of injury or a specific circumstance that requires a different player. But it can happen in many other areas of life, too. Perhaps you were picked to play 3rd trumpet instead of 1st. Maybe you were cast as a supporting character with few lines in the play. Or maybe you were just glanced over for that promotion you deserved at your company. If you heard our earlier episode on our podcast "How You Play The Game," you know exactly what I mean. The first thing to note in these situations is that it is completely natural to feel all the emotions associated with loss. If you're disappointed, angry, frustrated, or feeling any sort of grief, don't fight it! When you suppress those emotions, they come back later in an even bigger (and more detrimental) way. (Side note: if you know someone who is going through this, sympathy and empathy are key. Don't try to offer an explanation. Just be there for your grieving friend.) The next thing to examine (when you're ready) is how you can still play an important part in your team's success. You may have to "mute" the micro to look at the macro, i.e. put your current feelings on hold to look at the big picture. Sometimes, you have to suffer through something unfair to be rewarded later. The final thing to remember is that all of these situations have open endings. There's no magic word to solve them. They can go in any direction, and you have to be ready for the challenges that lie ahead. Maybe the starting quarterback gets injured in the first game and it's up to you to carry the team for the rest of the year. Maybe the lead in the play becomes sick and you have to step in. If you can, try to remember that all of these experiences can teach us the greater lesson of how a team succeeds together. The last guy to make the team can play an equal part in the team's success with encouragement, assistance, and some truncated playing time. Just because you're a small cog in the machine doesn't mean you don't help the machine work. You may have heard an earlier episode of our podcast, "How You Play The Game," (available on iTunes and PodBean) discuss the topic of trash-talking. This post follows up on that with a brief examination of a study that explains how it doesn't always work out the way you think it will!
Professors Jeremy Yip and Maurice Schweitzer (Wharton) took the time to examine trash-talking and its scientific effects in certain situations. The premise to "conceptualize trash-talking as competitive incivility" led to some expected results, frequently noting that the targets of trash-talking not only become very motivated (usually to win or succeed), but that sometimes they become so motivated that they're likely to engage in unethical behavior to win. Under this premise, trash-talking becomes a high-risk gamble by the talker: whereas the hope is that the method "gets into the head" of the talkee and gives an advantage to the talker, success is not only not guaranteed, but the talkee may look to do whatever it takes to make the talker lose, even if that means enacting some sort of harm on the talker. Their motivation is to see the talker lose rather than see their own rewards of victory. In short, trash-talkers are now responsible for boosting their opponent's motivation and performance, thereby facilitating their own demise within the competition. Other smaller points made within the study show that creative tasks (as opposed to constructive tasks) are actually completely disrupted and never fully realized as a result of trash-talking. Whereas solving a math problem that only has one concrete answer is considered constructive, creating a piece of art or another project where success is more in the eye of the beholder is creative, and therefore the real victim in situations with trash-talking. Trash-talking also exacerbates conflict and promotes unhealthy rivalries, which can lead to other competitive behavior that has the potential to be detrimental. Consider the trash-talking that goes on between rival college football fans. The rivalry that brews as a result of such a tactic can lead to unimaginable and ridiculous conflict, rather than seeing someone for his/her character and not judging that person based on their team affiliation. All in all, is the risk really worth the reward with trash-talking? |
Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|