Where the hell did this come from? Because I don't remember everyone getting a trophy when I was a kid. A participation ribbon, but those aren't trophies.
It comes from people who want to make children cry and couch their goals in the idea of reinforcement and reward and the bizarre idea that maximizing the emotional difference between winning and losing in a contest that is frankly almost completely random is a good way to teach them to strive harder rather than just lead them to be panicky and overly cautious
It comes from people who want to make children cry and couch their goals in the idea of reinforcement and reward and the bizarre idea that maximizing the emotional difference between winning and losing in a contest that is frankly almost completely random is a good way to teach them to strive harder rather than just lead them to be panicky and overly cautious
I used to be one of those people who kind of gave up once things stopped going my way, but that's no way to be and I'm hopefully snapping out of it
i'm not sure i follow how this implies "almost complete randomness"
i mean i think this is usually said with reference to sports, in which the winners are likely to be the kids who are most active and most determined to win, i think?
Tachyon said:i'm not sure i follow how this implies "almost complete randomness"
i mean i think this is usually said with reference to sports, in which the winners are likely to be the kids who are most active and most determined to win, i think?
I mean, even on the highest levels the difference between a win and a loss can be a few inches, and at the lower levels the kids aren't going to have the skill at the game to have significant skill differences beyond, like, the famous ones regarding school cutoffs, etc.
There are going to be kids who are good at the game and kids who aren't. There was never any likelihood of me ever coming first in a school sporting event; i was usually last in the class. Conversely, the winners were usually the same few kids. i don't think this would happen if it were random; fitness and motivation make a big difference.
i'm not sure i follow how this implies "almost complete randomness"
i mean i think this is usually said with reference to sports, in which the winners are likely to be the kids who are most active and most determined to win, i think?
Grade school sports are not really ever reflective of future athletic talents.
Not to mention this is usually talked about re: sports days, which are like mini-Olympics, and are a hotbed of parents who care way too much about what piece of chintzy coated plastic their children receive.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Honestly this always struck me as another emobidment of the "screw you, got mine" culture that poisions so much of America
"Your kid's not natually athletic and stood no chance of ever winning against kids with different body types? Too bad, they should have learned it's their own fault for not trying harder."
i am not convinced. Seems to me the people who are best at things are often people who started doing them in early childhood, and if you're not interested in active play when you're small i think there's a good chance that kind of activity won't ever appeal.
i mean i could be completely wrong, are there statistics on this? But what i'm saying feels right and mostly aligns with my own experiences.
i am also unsure to what extent natural body types play a role here.
By which i mean i don't know, not that i'm sceptical. i can readily believe they play a fairly significant role, but i don't think that devalues the achievements of the ones who, having a body suited to athletic success, are sufficiently driven and put in the necessary work to get good at it.
Point 2? If you mean the sports day thing, well, i guess that's not really my experience of them. Sports days were something we just had to do and most kids seemed to enjoy them. If nothing else, it was time off from study and we got to spend it outside.
Children's sports are terrible. And trust me, at elementary school level (any higher and it won't be everyone getting a trophy) there is pretty much no difference in skill. It's all about natural talent. It sucks too, because when I was that age I absolutely picked up on the fact that no one thought I deserved anything. I think dedication to physical activity at a young age should be rewarded.
Children's sports are terrible. And trust me, at elementary school level (any higher and it won't be everyone getting a trophy) there is pretty much no difference in skill. It's all about natural talent. It sucks too, because when I was that age I absolutely picked up on the fact that no one thought I deserved anything. I think dedication to physical activity at a young age should be rewarded.
Elementary school includes kids up to the age of 11, i think? In which case yes there certainly is a big difference in skill.
Centie: Honestly this always struck me as another emobidment of the "screw you, got mine" culture that poisions so much of America
"Your kid's not natually athletic and stood no chance of ever winning against kids with different body types? Too bad, they should have learned it's their own fault for not trying harder."
Well I mean, to a degree, yeah. You don't simply get good at sports out of nowhere, and barring cases of cheating sports winners have always simply been the best. Whether or not they are the same few kids.
Anyway, I always found the idea of everyone receiving a prize for sports days - or really sports in general - to be incredibly silly, and at least a little mock-worthy. Aside from the fact that they're just chintzy trash, if you weren't good enough to get first, second, or third place, then that is the long and short of it; you just didn't make the cut and have something more to work towards. A number of the folks who win tend to be naturally athletic and/or participate in sports at an early age and any other number of things, but it's not like I only saw folks with clean and pure bodies winning anyway, personally speaking. Athletic hindrances are simply one more challenge to overcome, and to me, shouldn't be used as a reason for your not being able to achieve something (barring obviously harsh issues like chronic pain).
I'm also not a fan of "sports culture", though I also don't rally agree with the repressiveness that Anonus mentioned. That said, I haven't followed the sports I like or been in the sports I like to any meaningful degree for some years now so I'll just take his word for it.
'k see that's the thing though, participation medals are actually not that common a practice (no school I've ever been at has done them) but people act like they're everywhere and somehow killing America.
That is why I said the idea. I mean I could have gone into how I never saw them too, but that's functionally irrelevant if I'm talking about my general take on them.
athletic culture seems kind of repressive in general
"if your whole life isn't about playing this game, you'll never succeed at it"
not true, and it depends what level you're playing at
if you want to get good at ANY activity you generally need to spend a lot of time at it
I know that!
I guess it just feels more pronounced to me because I've usually seen it go hand-in-hand with what I'd describe as toxic masculinity
I saw Drew Magary describe it like if Russell Wilson (Seahawks quarterback) liked painting, the various people who molded him into the football player he is now would be like "NOPE"
is there much a point in mocking something that doesn't really happen
I don't? I seriously don't get how you're drawing these things from my comments, it's a little annoying especially when that was only one part of my comment anyway. I have not ever actually mocked them, but that doesn't mean I don't find it silly (which is why I'm glad I've never seen them).
Besides that, I would think my stance on mockery is at least slightly understood by now, but I guess it isn't. I find the killing America comments more silly, though why mention something that's tangential to what I want to focus on?
athletic culture seems kind of repressive in general
"if your whole life isn't about playing this game, you'll never succeed at it"
not true, and it depends what level you're playing at
if you want to get good at ANY activity you generally need to spend a lot of time at it
I know that!
I guess it just feels more pronounced to me because I've usually seen it go hand-in-hand with what I'd describe as toxic masculinity
I saw Drew Magary describe it like if Russell Wilson (Seahawks quarterback) liked painting, the various people who molded him into the football player he is now would be like "NOPE"
Telling someone they can't enjoy painting sounds pretty toxic, yes.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I mean I could understand if the argument were presented as "giving everybody the same prize devalues the accomplishments of the kids who actually tried harder", yes
But I never see it framed that way
It's always "giving kids prizes just for trying will give them a sense of entitlement!", which...uh, yeah, no
is there much a point in mocking something that doesn't really happen
I don't? I seriously don't get how you're drawing these things from my comments, it's a little annoying especially when that was only one part of my comment anyway. I have not ever actually mocked them, but that doesn't mean I don't find it silly (which is why I'm glad I've never seen them).
You said the idea was and I quote "a little mock-worthy".
I'm not sure where you're drawing whatever you're drawing from my comments, I wasn't really talking about you.
Yes, it is in theory; doesn't mean I do. I can get why I've seen some of my friends have mocked them idea, even if I find that silly. Fair, though, my bad. I guess I explained that badly, so eh.
^^ Sure, I disagree with that, though it's not my particular stance. Shrug
I mean I could understand if the argument were presented as "giving everybody the same prize devalues the accomplishments of the kids who actually tried harder", yes
But I never see it framed that way
It's always "giving kids prizes just for trying will give them a sense of entitlement!", which...uh, yeah, no
The former seemed to be the message of The Incredibles, which honestly is what i chiefly associate this complaint with, having seldom encountered it IRL
I mean I could understand if the argument were presented as "giving everybody the same prize devalues the accomplishments of the kids who actually tried harder", yes
But I never see it framed that way
It's always "giving kids prizes just for trying will give them a sense of entitlement!", which...uh, yeah, no
The former seemed to be the message of The Incredibles, which honestly is what i chiefly associate this complaint with, having seldom encountered it IRL
well, and I mean no offense, you live in the UK.
"Step on everyone else to get what you want and never feel bad about it" is a uniquely American sort of assholishness. Most people at least try to come up with an excuse.
It's children's sports. Ultimately the ideal is that you're giving them positive experiences with the activity, it's not like victory or loss actually, like, means anything. By favoring certain children who, for various reasons, are more athletic (as if relative athleticism particularly matters for seven year olds) you kinda sour the experience for the others early on.
I mean I could understand if the argument were presented as "giving everybody the same prize devalues the accomplishments of the kids who actually tried harder", yes
But I never see it framed that way
It's always "giving kids prizes just for trying will give them a sense of entitlement!", which...uh, yeah, no
The former seemed to be the message of The Incredibles, which honestly is what i chiefly associate this complaint with, having seldom encountered it IRL
This is only tangentially related, but other people have already gone off on tangents themselves, so...
I always thought that tagging Brad Bird with the "Ayn Rand" tag was a bit unfair.
Positive experiences are cool, I like them. The favoring was always less of an issue with me than the times kids got picked on for not being as athletic, which to me would be there with or without physical examples of how well you did and whatnot. Personally, uniformly doing away with celebratory things in kids' sports days would be fine in my books (although I guess anything physical, theoretical or otherwise, is nice as a memento of sorts), since bullying is more important... but that can't quite be done away with as easily.
Yeah it's pretty amazing how quickly kids establish a hierarchy of who is or isn't athletic. It may not seem like a big deal, but the hierarchy lasted- in my experience, at least- well into high school. Setting up positive attitudes early on is important. With young children in sports, you need to be rewarding dedication, not victory.
like OK you can call me bitter if you want but when I was in elementary and middle school I was literally not allowed to do gym class and of the four gym teachers I had only the one I had for my last two years actually respected that, the other three would make me do it anyway, which meant that every Thursday I would be a hacking, wheezing mess by the time it was over, which also made me pretty much unable to do anything that required any level of concentration for the remaining 2 1/2 hours of the day (we had gym right before lunch).
And for those of you going "well why didn't your parents say anything?" They did. Our principal emptily promised them it'd stop and I was threatened with detention if I brought it up again, and when you're 10 and otherwise rule-abiding, detention is scary, so I didn't bring it up again.
well ironically the only one I ever had who was in the military prior (and I'm sure y'all know that whole stereotype) was actually the only one who respected my doctor's note (s/o Mrs. Iasello).
Comments
the point is that a prize for the mere act of taking part doesn't feel much like a prize
i mean i think this is usually said with reference to sports, in which the winners are likely to be the kids who are most active and most determined to win, i think?
i mean i think this is usually said with reference to sports, in which the winners are likely to be the kids who are most active and most determined to win, i think?
I mean, even on the highest levels the difference between a win and a loss can be a few inches, and at the lower levels the kids aren't going to have the skill at the game to have significant skill differences beyond, like, the famous ones regarding school cutoffs, etc.
i am not convinced. Seems to me the people who are best at things are often people who started doing them in early childhood, and if you're not interested in active play when you're small i think there's a good chance that kind of activity won't ever appeal.
i mean i could be completely wrong, are there statistics on this? But what i'm saying feels right and mostly aligns with my own experiences.
By which i mean i don't know, not that i'm sceptical. i can readily believe they play a fairly significant role, but i don't think that devalues the achievements of the ones who, having a body suited to athletic success, are sufficiently driven and put in the necessary work to get good at it.
Point 2? If you mean the sports day thing, well, i guess that's not really my experience of them. Sports days were something we just had to do and most kids seemed to enjoy them. If nothing else, it was time off from study and we got to spend it outside.
if you want to get good at ANY activity you generally need to spend a lot of time at it
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Well I mean, to a degree, yeah. You don't simply get good at sports out of nowhere, and barring cases of cheating sports winners have always simply been the best. Whether or not they are the same few kids.
the suggestion that something that's not that common is 'killing america', i mean