Comment on [deleted]
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 week agoif he’s not great at football even though he’s living with a pro, that shows me how little you value him.
Some people simple don’t have the ability to be good at some things, no matter how hard they work at it, no matter who mentors them. Very, very few people have the ability to be a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart regardless of what kind of mentorship they have.
Let me give you a concrete example.
I’ve had a major shoulder surgery after tearing the shit out of my supraspinatus and the labrum. The supraspinatus passes through the acromium process on the scapula. The acromium process has roughly three different shapes, which are largely determined by genetics. A type I acromium process is smooth, and allows the spuraspinatus to pass through easily. Type II and type III acromium processes have pronounced ‘hook’ shapes–type III significantly more so–that make injury to the supraspinatus much more probable. I have a type II acromium process. Had Mary Lou Retton been my mother and coach, and I’d tried to be a gymnast, I would have destroyed both of my shoulders long before I was ever going to be going to nation-level events; the limits of the shape of my scapula would have made success impossible, given that a strong and stable shoulder is required in gymnastics, regardless of sex/gender. I would likewise be unable to be a competitive powerlifter, for much the same reason; working up to a nationally competitive snatch would have also destroyed my shoulders. (And, in point of fact, it was working on push-presses that killed it.)
People are not a tabula rasa, only needing the proper encouragement to become paragons in a given field.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You are suffering from several fallacies.
Fortunately, the world doesn’t operate this way. There are people who are mediocre, and sometimes poor, at playing football professionally or other professions. Your line of thinking would lead to only one person playing football at a time, the person who is the best at it, and everyone else should give up.
While meritocracy is a nice thought, that the best inevitably rise to the top, it’s not necessarily true. Just as there’s circumstances that keep talent from succeeding, like financial background, biases against people, and luck, those things also can lift up the less talented. There’s many celebrities that aren’t as talented at acting as someone stuck in a small town.
As far as you know, op could be wrong. Maybe the kid plays great and OP is too critical, you don’t know. This could be a critical mistake on OP’s end, and making the kid give up doesn’t help regardless.
If this were true, no one would need to practice anything. You said Mozart succeeded because of his mentoring, but then argue for people having lack of natural talent leading to failure.
It was also tempting to throw in the argument of verbosity. But your shoulder injury, or that some people are incapable of physically doing things, isn’t relevant. The kid is physically capable of playing football. It’s a false equivalence.
You presume that this kid will only have the ability he is at, and that even with training, won’t get better. This ties into your belief in natural talent a bit, but it’s still pretty foolish to assume professional football players play at the level they did at 16, so it’s also foolish to assume that 16 is where this kid will peak.
This is where you missed the the bigger picture. There’s more on the line than just success at football, there’s a whole relationship at stake, and a kid’s mental and emotional health.
So that all said, look at it this way. There’s four scenarios that could’ve taken place, with four factors. Kid gets encouraged, let’s shorthand that to E. Kid gets discouraged, D. Kid succeeds at professional football, S. Kid fails at professional football, F.
ES is obviously the best. Kid gets support, becomes professional football player, everyone’s happy.
EF is disappointing, but salvageable. The kid gets the attitude of not giving up and at least Dad has his back. Maybe he tries something else after not making the cut, and has a great career at something he’s able to do, but at least he tried. He’s not going to be able to try forever, but he can at least try something new with a solid foundation.
DS is a tragic hero. Kid gets there but doesn’t have a great relationship with Dad. Success is tainted by bitterness, and every win is to prove Dad wrong. Doesn’t have a great relationship with Dad, and probably has a lasting issue because of it.
DF is the worst possible outcome, and at this point it’s the most likely. Kid has an even worse issue with Dad, dreams are crushed, and he grows up bitter and resentful. He’s taught to not try for anything he’s interested in, and lives a life of miserable mediocrity.
It’s my opinion that it’s better for parents to encourage their children in their dreams, because the success rate is probably higher and at the very least they get the support they need to try something different. It’s almost never a great idea to discourage a child because that leads to resentment and lethargy.
You aren’t saving anyone by telling them to give up. That’s a decision they should make on their own. This is even more true for a child who is still developing who they are and how they see the world.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 week ago
You’re making a ton of straw-man arguments.
You don’t have to be the best. You do have to be good enough to get scouted by a professional team if your goal is to play professionally. I never at any point said that it wasn’t worth playing if you couldn’t be the best or do it professionally. I spend a lot of time shooting competitively; it’s likely that I will never make Master or Grandmaster in anything, and as a result I’m never going to be sponsored or be able to earn a living at it. (…Not that the money is very good anyways.) So what? I still have fun.
In sports, playing professionally is a meritocracy. Socioeconomic class matters insofar as having more wealth and privilege means that you’ll have access to better training prior to becoming a professional. But the child in question already has access to training, through a parent that plays professionally. But that’s all the farther that socioeconomic class gets you in sports. People from poorer backgrounds often get to go far in sports, if they have the skill.
Yes, OP could be wrong. On the other hand, OP is claiming to be a professional in the field, and is therefore more likely to have an informed opinion.
Success is a combination of directed effort, an inherent capability; it’s not one or the other. If you lack certain inherent capabilities, then all the directed effort in the world won’t get you where you want to be. You can have all the gifts to achieve greatness in a given field, and yet fail completely if you don’t carefully direct your ability in that area.
See above. The kid already has access to top-tier training, and is not making the grade necessary to perform at a professional level. Ergo, the part that is lacking is capability. …Which is why my anecdote is relevant; it’s not my unwillingness to work my ass off that has limited my power lifting aspirations, it’s my physical capabilities. (And yes, I really did work at power lifting. And will again once my shoulder finished healing, even though I’m never going to be competitive at any level.)
Of course the kid isn’t going to be at the same level forever. But he’s not on track to be at a level where he’s capable of playing professionally. A 16yo that’s capable of going pro–esp. when they have access to high-level training–would be expected to be performing at a certain level. According to OP, he isn’t. The probability is that, while he will continue to improve (up until age catches up with him), he is not going to be at a professional level in time to make a career of it.
You’re drawing a false dichotomy between being honest/realistic with your children, and having a relationship with them. I’m gathering, from what you’re saying, that you don’t believe that the parent should give their child a realistic assessment of their performance, and should simply be encouraging; it that correct? It seem like you believe that putting all of your effort into a goal, and failing to achieve that goal would not cause deep bitterness on its own; am I reading that correctly?
“It’s my opinion that it’s better for parents to encourage their children in their dreams […]” I partially disagree. I think that parents need to encourage children to set realistic goals in life, and goals that can be stretch goals. Maybe that looks like going to school to become a biologist, and going on to medical school if biology ends up being fairly easy for them. Maybe that looks like going into a trade if they’re good at working with their hands. Playing professional sports–or being a touring musician that makes enough to live on, etc.–is like winning a jackpot in the lottery. Sure, you gotta play in order to win, but for every person that wins there’s millions of people that don’t. I would hope that you would say that anyone planning for retirement by buying lottery tickets was a fool, even if that person was your child. But even so, you can play sport for fun.