|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
>>Quote:
[Shibumi] cht: I in no way mean it as a slam on anyone. It's just that a lot of the arguments being made didn't make sense. Trading out what's best for your children in the name of names and colors would be dumb. And since I could construct (and did on this message board) a logical argument for renaming and rebranding, I didn't understand how intelligent and reasonable people could be coming to such a different conclusion.
>>[Coach Chass] I guess that would depend on exactly what parents think is "best" for their children, and what lesson they are trying to teach them. Just because you don't understand the thinking behind something, that doesn't necessarily make it "dumb."<<
It is a fact that my not understanding the thinking behind something doesn't necessarily make it "dumb." At the same time, after spending a lot of time and energy soliciting both "facts" and "opinions" leads one to believe that people are acting against the best interest of their children, labeling those actions as "dumb" appears to a valid response. Particularly on a message board in which one is continuing to be engaged in an attempt to understand rational and reasonable motivations.
For example, I would value it a great deal if you would take the opposing position -- that colors and name changes and the like are more important than the services a club renders -- and argue that position. I feel that I could learn from you and that you'd make a position -- which seems murky at best -- much clearer.
>>"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. " --Marcus Aurelius<<
I know that it's fashionable these days to believe that an objective reality doesn't actually exist, that the world is entirely subjective. And certainly at the level of quantum physics, you can make that argument. However, there are actually facts in the world. If you jump off a very high bridge, you have a good chance to die. You can argue against gravity, but in the end gravity is typically going to make you very sorry regardless of how eloquent you are.
While there's an absolute difference between a "fact" and the "truth", it's up to each of us to evaluate for ourselves the difference. I believe that a human being who decides against procuring a better service for a child because of colors or a club name is practicing a mild form of reverse Darwinism. I believe that a human being who decides that they can coach their child better than a professional coach may be right or wrong, but at least that person is acting out of a consistent belief in maximizing what they are doing for their progeny.
This one is a little trickier, and it's going to require an open mind. You seem to have come to a conclusion and with it the attitude that it is the only conclusion "intelligent" and "reasonable" people could come to. If you can step outside of that position for a few minutes, I'll do my best to explain the opposite side of the coin.
Two disclaimers before I start:
1. I am an outside observer of this entire situation, and I'm sure there are many elements of the story I don't know. The majority of my information comes from what I have read here on this board, which I'm sure does not tell the whole story. I am not qualified to speak for the people who are involved; I am only stating my own observations.
2. I am in no way trying to argue what is "right" or "wrong" in this case; I am merely trying to see things from the perspective of the people involved and explain WHY they may see things the way they do.
That said, I'll start out with the only major fallacy of reasoning in your argument; you're arguing a broad, very complex concept (the "best interest of their children") exclusively from the perspective of a very narrow element (quality of soccer training) which, while it certainly can be a factor in the "best interest," it may not be the biggest controlling factor in the views of the parents, and it is far from the only one. I have a hard time believing that a significant number of parents, especially the ones from the segment who have provided opportunities for their children by putting the money and effort into sending them to a soccer club, would wilfully act against the same children's best interest, so it's only logical to assume that there is some reasoning behind their decisions besides spiteful neglect. Rather than just chalk it up to stupidity, let's try to analyze whether there may be more to the reasoning process than, "I think blue is prettier than red, so don't help me if you don't like blue too."
The Marcus Aurelius quote has little to do with being "fashionable" (I have little use for fashion; just ask my players) and everything to do with a point that I did not take the time to explain; I suppose I was hoping that it would stand on its own merit rather than be dismissed as frivolous. The point is, your own argument comes entirely from the perspective of someone who regards "services offered" as the only qualifying factor, while not everyone involved thinks in such narrow terms. While you're absolutely right that you can't argue with gravity (as one of my students once said, "Just because you understand why the boulder is falling, that doesn't stop it from crushing your head"), gravity is a rather simple concept; it's a constant pull, and it only goes in one direction. "Best interest," on the other hand, is a tad more complex than gravity, and it would take someone of very limited perception to think it could be boiled down to only one element.
Quantum physics aside, it is a mathematical truth that getting a small raise that puts you in a higher tax bracket can actually result in a smaller paycheck. What looks to be beneficial in one area doesn't always mean an improved bottom line, so what a lot of people look at (with some suspicion) is, "What's it going to cost me?" (Otherwise known as "What's the catch?"
I think the catch, in this case, was giving up both identity and control. Now, in some ways (as you have pointed out) this could be a good thing. From a management perspective, if a model is not working, it makes sense to change it, and putting it in the hands of people who have created a successful model is a good, logical choice. When turning over control of an organization that involves the children, though, there has to be a certain amount of trust that the people you're turning it over to really are going to act in their "best interest," and here's where taking a wider perspective on that concept comes into play.
You've pointed out yourself that there are significant differences between the SSC teams and the Challenge/Premier teams that CESA is best known for managing. You also quite correctly pointed out the need for handling these teams differently when it comes to tournaments, etc. The reality is, the environment, the culture, the values, and the needs (beyond simple, obvious concepts such as quality of coaching--but even that can be somewhat subjective) of SSC players and parents may or may not be the same as those of the teams CESA manages in other areas. Absolute, objective quality of a thing--whether it's a management model or a new suit--is important, of course, but maybe even more important is whether it FITS the person it's supposed to be tailored for. If a tailor stated, "I make the best suits in the world. These are the perfect dimensions, and this is the perfect color. I will not alter it to your tastes; you can alter your body to fit my suit," there are people who would buy them just to say they were exclusive, but for my money, I'd rather go to the one who says, "I make fine suits. I will not compromise on materials and workmanship to cut cost, but I will tailor the fit and style to suit your needs."
(Who am I kidding; I buy my suits at J.C. Penney.)
Now, compare that to the message that was perceived by the SSC parents. Was it really about uniform color? Of course not, but a color in this case isn't just a color; it's a symbol of something more significant. You've made the point yourself that a uniform color is a foolish thing to break a deal over...so, the rational, thinking person might ask the question, "so, what makes it so significant to Tormey and Hyslop that THEY weren't willing to compromise over it?"
From what I've heard people say, the quest was to find quality people to manage Summerville Soccer Club--not to cease BEING Summerville Soccer Club. Altering the name of the club is one thing, and I agree with your point that "rebranding" can serve to open up doors with the association with the CESA program. Practically speaking, though, is there any logical, performance-oriented reason that "CESA-Summerville," as its own entity, couldn't continue to wear the blue uniforms they are proud of? Before deciding whether to invite a club called "CESA-Summerville" to a tournament, do you think folks would call ahead and see what color uniforms they'd be wearing? I doubt it. So why the refusal to compromise? What real, practical advantage would there be to forcing a change of uniform color--except as a visible assertion of control? Now, to a thinking person, an uncompromising assertion of control that comes without even an attempt at a logical explanation of benefit is a red (forgive the comparison) flag.
So, from the perspective of the "super-minority" at SSC, here's the underlying message that was given:
1. In return for our services, you have to give up your entire identity as a club. You will lose your individuality and become another cog in our machine. Your history and tradition mean nothing to us; you will be re-formed in our image, and it will be made obvious to all that any future success is a result of our intervention. You will trade your pride and cultural identity for a chance at material success. (Now, this is a "pride" thing...I never said it was logical, but logic isn't the only thing that is important to a lot of folks.)
2. We are absolutely unwilling to try to tailor our approach to fit you. We will not compromise on the smallest details to make the management of this club more acceptable to you. This is the way we do things, this is the way we dress, and if you don't like it, lump it.
Now, this one hits a little deeper in the parental psyche. If management isn't willing to compromise on even the details that don't really matter, what will they do on the bigger issues? How do I know they really have my child's best interest at heart and aren't just promoting their own agenda? What token of good faith have they given that shows that they care anything about our values, our community, and our children? Are they going to try to work WITH my child, or are they going to take the same approach as they did with the uniforms--if they don't fit our mold, they're out? While they may create some opportunities for a few that they might not otherwise have, are they going to be willing to try to tailor their approach to serve the "best interest" of ALL of our children, or are they going to cater to the elite who fit their high-profile image? Do they realize the demographics are different here, and will they make any effort to understand and adapt? What changes do they have in mind for our tournament schedules, etc., and will they take into consideration the cost in money and time for us, or will it be a railroad job? If half of our team comes here just because they love working with Billy's dad, what happens when he gets let go because he's not certified enough?
Lots of questions, and from what those who were there have said, very few answers. The uniform issue isn't just about giving up a color; it's about giving up an identity (and there's a lot of resistance to the idea of "selling out"), and it's about giving up a lot of control over what happens to your own children. So, from the point of view of a responsible parent, is it more in your child's best interest to commit control to someone who has not earned your trust and has demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise with your wants and needs, or is it wiser not to jump at the promise of better things without considering ALL of the consequences and getting good answers to the questions? There may be very good, beneficial answers to all of those questions, but if they weren't made clear to the voters before the vote, then I can understand their hesitance.
I'll end with a true story about logic vs. values. Maybe it's related, maybe it's not.
My first year teaching, I was in a 1-A school in the little town where I grew up. Overall, it's a pretty low-income area, and one of the classes I was teaching had a majority of the lower-economic-status students even among that group.
A friend of mine had paid me back a loan at school that day and I had stuck the $100 bill he gave me in my pocket. Apparently I accidentally pulled it out in class while fishing for a pen, and it fell on the floor without me noticing. First I knew of it, I was writing on the board, and a girl who sits in the front row tapped me on the shoulder and said, "You dropped this."
She could have kept it, and I would never have known. Half the people in the class yelled at her and called her stupid for giving it back. I knew her family; they didn't have much. She often wore the same clothes to school several days a week. That $100 could have bought a lot of groceries for her family; her little brothers would have eaten better; she could have gotten some new shoes. Giving it back, all she got was a sincere thank-you from her teacher (she wouldn't take any money) and the ability to hold her head up and feel like she'd done the right thing. She gave up something that could have benefited her family because it was more important to her to stick to her values; she was going to go hungry that night no matter how eloquently someone might have praised her. From a logical perspective, that was pretty dumb.
We could use some more dumb people in this world.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Footnote: You also have to look from the perspective of someone who hasn't had close personal experience with CESA and its operatives; sometimes we evaluate things based on what we already know rather than what someone without our prior knowledge can see.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach Chass] Thank you; that does clarify, and it does make sense. Of course, it also takes a bit of assumption to say that they WOULD treat SSC as a separate entity with a different tournament agenda, but it would be a reasonable course of action.<<
I probably have a bit of an advantage having seen internally how CESA and CESA-Columbia operate. This subject came up in a branding discussion initially -- but I can tell you that operationally CESA and CESA-Columbia operate like a normal business -- with boards that talk strategy and all operations left to the executives (e.g., DOCs).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Quote:
Footnote: You also have to look from the perspective of someone who hasn't had close personal experience with CESA and its operatives; sometimes we evaluate things based on what we already know rather than what someone without our prior knowledge can see.
I understand; it's just that if it's my kid (and years ago it was -- when my kid wanted me to drive 200 miles round trip to take her up to one of these clubs) I'd probably search a bit harder for the truth rather than let my preconceived notions and biases drive me to vote against something that might help her in what she wants from youth soccer (i.e., better training, better teams, or whatever.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Coach Chass: More is coming...but it's going to be S*L*O*W given the workload I have here... I'll work on this non-linearly a section at a time...
>>I'll end with a true story about logic vs. values. Maybe it's related, maybe it's not.
My first year teaching, I was in a 1-A school in the little town where I grew up. Overall, it's a pretty low-income area, and one of the classes I was teaching had a majority of the lower-economic-status students even among that group.
A friend of mine had paid me back a loan at school that day and I had stuck the $100 bill he gave me in my pocket. Apparently I accidentally pulled it out in class while fishing for a pen, and it fell on the floor without me noticing. First I knew of it, I was writing on the board, and a girl who sits in the front row tapped me on the shoulder and said, "You dropped this."
She could have kept it, and I would never have known. Half the people in the class yelled at her and called her stupid for giving it back. I knew her family; they didn't have much. She often wore the same clothes to school several days a week. That $100 could have bought a lot of groceries for her family; her little brothers would have eaten better; she could have gotten some new shoes. Giving it back, all she got was a sincere thank-you from her teacher (she wouldn't take any money) and the ability to hold her head up and feel like she'd done the right thing. She gave up something that could have benefited her family because it was more important to her to stick to her values; she was going to go hungry that night no matter how eloquently someone might have praised her. From a logical perspective, that was pretty dumb.
We could use some more dumb people in this world. <<
It's a nice story -- but you're apparently confusing moral and ethical behavior with the intelligence of that behavior. It's not hard to posit that we need more honest people in the world. It's difficult to posit that honesty and stupidity are the same. And it's almost impossible to posit that we need more stupidity in this world.
There's actually a lot of game theory out there that show that optimizing for short-term benefit by bypassing moral and ethical behavior has tremendous advantages over time. Thus, this child was acting much more "smart" than "dumb" -- and I'm sure that's because her parents helped her understand that.
I hope that you don't really believe we could use more dumb people in this world. I'm a pretty big proponent of education so that we can have fewer...I'm pretty sure you are too.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
It's a nice story -- but you're apparently confusing moral and ethical behavior with the intelligence of that behavior. It's not hard to posit that we need more honest people in the world. It's difficult to posit that honesty and stupidity are the same. And it's almost impossible to posit that we need more stupidity in this world.
There's actually a lot of game theory out there that show that optimizing for short-term benefit by bypassing moral and ethical behavior has tremendous advantages over time. Thus, this child was acting much more "smart" than "dumb" -- and I'm sure that's because her parents helped her understand that.
I hope that you don't really believe we could use more dumb people in this world. I'm a pretty big proponent of education so that we can have fewer...I'm pretty sure you are too.
And you're apparently taking me literally while missing the point which was made figuratively...but you made a nice save by making the same point yourself following. I'm sorry; speaking in fables and allowing the reader to "read between the lines" is another cultural thing I suffer from.
I've read the "there's a lot of game theory" sentence several times and it seems to contradict itself, but if what you really meant to say was that bypassing short-term gains in favor of moral and ethical behavior has tremendous advantages over time, then I couldn't agree more; that was, in fact, my point. That was a lesson my father taught me when I was still very small--that grabbing the quick, obvious short-term benefit without considering the overall effects was truly the "dumb" approach.
The point of the story wasn't about intelligence and stupidity, it was about perspectives. From the perspective of her classmates, who saw the situation only from the narrow perspective of a single and very obvious benefit (having $100 in her pocket to spend on herself and her family) her decision was "dumb." From her perspective and that of her parents, who understood (although they probably couldn't have eloquently put it into words) the ripple effect that any single decision can have, it wasn't "dumb" at all, and she was perfectly willing to be called "dumb" by a group of people who thought they were smarter than she (I'm sure they could have composed a very logical argument for the benefits of taking the $100, vs. the "maybes" and intangibles involved in giving it back) in order to do what she believed was right.
That's the brand of "dumb" I think we can use more of.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
