 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Hmm, "bucko"...I sniff red hair and wounded pride!
 |
Really? I pictured you bald, like Howard!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Hmm, "bucko"...I sniff red hair and wounded pride!
|
Ahhhh poorly linked and isolated comedy......the last resort for failed intellect.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I've explained my point in this thread already, I see no need to revisit that as no one has been able to successfully prove it incorrect.
Jurrah's behaviour is totally unlikely to influence any kids to drink drive as I have explained. This does not mean in any way that footballers cannot be role models.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby 
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sorry to be so late to this party, but I wanted to do my research.
It's a very informative thread this one. There's been a pronounced uprising in NBB. I like that a lot.
But now to the boring bit, my 'research' shows that AFL footballers are indeed significant role models to young people.
Players may be 'heroes' to footy junkies of any age. My first Collingwood hero was Laurie Hill and then later, Peter McKenna, Barry Price, Billy Picken, John Greening, Tony Shaw, Peter Daicos and Scotty Burns to name but a few.
I loved the way these guys played the game. Were they role models? Nope. For me, players were not role models as such, but I did like them and 'was' them in backyard games.
Players don't enter the game thinking they'll become role models and many make terrible role models, but they soon learn that they are role models whether they like it or not.
Certainly the AFL thinks players are role models and go to extreme lengths to control their men. So do the clubs; CEOs would control every waking moment if they could.
Footballers can be very strong role models within clubs but this is not the part of the argument in dispute. The fact that my 'research' shows AFL players are significant role models outside the club is more interesting.
18% of young people aged between 7-13 said AFL players were role models to them.
20% said Jesus was. There goes the argument that the influence has to be a close physical bond err, Catholic priests not withstanding.
21% said teachers were. Thank goodness for that.
Encouragingly for the human race, 35% said parents were role models.
These figures come from a sample of 11,000 children from a 2006 survey by Ray Vamplew.
My 'research' came from an interesting article in Footy Roar.
It lists other data and research too in an article headed, 'AFL players should be role models.' Google it.
Role models or not, the message should be very clear to every player on club lists; you are expected to behave, be respectful of team rules and club culture and be the sort of player that brings in the revenue from fans and sponsors.
Don't agree with the AFL Drugs testing? Go and play somewhere else because your union signed off on that and unfortunately, your opinion doesn't count anymore.
Don't like the scrutiny off field that severely cramps your style and ability to let your hair down? Go play soccer or basketball or some other no-profile sport. Or better yet, holiday in another country and enjoy total freedom to do as you wish. Unless you play for Collingwood, in which case you cannot escape ever!
You play in the biggest league in town and with all the benefits that it brings, there is a price to pay. One of those is that to significant numbers of children, you are a role model whether you want to be or not.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Neil, I think you'll find your main contention has already been addressed earlier in the thread. As I stated on page 6:
| David wrote: | | This is merely a reflection of the pop cultural understanding of the term 'role model'. What does it actually mean? What do you think the kids mean when they nominate a sports star or actor as a role model? Does it mean "I aspire to be like that person in all of their facets?", or simply "I aspire to be like that person in certain key facets?" |
The fact that 18% of preteens cite football players as their 'role models' and 35% list their parents doesn't mean that footballers and parents have the same amount of influence over each respective group. In fact, we know for a fact (and really should know intuitively) that this isn't even vaguely true. Football players, as PTID argued somewhere else in the thread, are mere ciphers upon which pre-existing values are placed, like singers or cartoon characters; parents, teachers and family members, on the other hand, have a constant, meaningful impact on the child's development as a person. This is the resounding conclusion that Neil's studies in the original post point to, and I don't think surveying 9 year-olds about who they consider to be their 'role model' provides much evidence to the contrary. All it really shows is that it's a term with a flexible definition.
Otherwise, you make this rather curious claim:
| Neil Appleby wrote: | Players may be 'heroes' to footy junkies of any age. My first Collingwood hero was Laurie Hill and then later, Peter McKenna, Barry Price, Billy Picken, John Greening, Tony Shaw, Peter Daicos and Scotty Burns to name but a few.
I loved the way these guys played the game. Were they role models? Nope. For me, players were not role models as such, but I did like them and 'was' them in backyard games.
Players don't enter the game thinking they'll become role models and many make terrible role models, but they soon learn that they are role models whether they like it or not.
Certainly the AFL thinks players are role models and go to extreme lengths to control their men. So do the clubs; CEOs would control every waking moment if they could. |
So, on the one hand your personal childhood experience indicates that footballers are not role models, and yet you are now convinced that they are? Huh? That doesn't make sense. If Laurie Hill wasn't a role model for you, why would Ben Cousins be a role model for Little Johnny? You haven't explained that at all.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I've explained my point in this thread already, I see no need to revisit that as no one has been able to successfully prove it incorrect.
Jurrah's behaviour is totally unlikely to influence any kids to drink drive as I have explained. This does not mean in any way that footballers cannot be role models. |
Yes, but "role model" in some meaningful sense, or "role model" in some trivial sense which has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
The issue is and always has been whether we need to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
The term "role model" is a distraction; it is insincere for people to keep hiding behind it.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I've explained my point in this thread already, I see no need to revisit that as no one has been able to successfully prove it incorrect.
Jurrah's behaviour is totally unlikely to influence any kids to drink drive as I have explained. This does not mean in any way that footballers cannot be role models. |
Yes, but "role model" in some meaningful sense, or "role model" in some trivial sense which has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
The issue is and always has been whether we need to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
The term "role model" is a distraction; it is insincere for people to keep hiding behind it. |
What was the title of this thread again?
Just tell him he's right Stui. After reading a few of his replies in few different threads... It's all he wants to hear and it's all he'll listen too.
Everything else is either trivial, a good hiding place, rediculous bla bla bla
What's that saying.....a wise man knows nothing of his wisdom.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Double sorry.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| September Zeros wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I've explained my point in this thread already, I see no need to revisit that as no one has been able to successfully prove it incorrect.
Jurrah's behaviour is totally unlikely to influence any kids to drink drive as I have explained. This does not mean in any way that footballers cannot be role models. |
Yes, but "role model" in some meaningful sense, or "role model" in some trivial sense which has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
The issue is and always has been whether we need to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
The term "role model" is a distraction; it is insincere for people to keep hiding behind it. |
What was the title of this thread again?
Just tell him he's right Stui. After reading a few of his replies in few different threads... It's all he wants to hear and it's all he'll listen too.
Everything else is either trivial, a good hiding place, rediculous bla bla bla
What's that saying.....a wise man knows nothing of his wisdom. |
More insincerity (and no, I'm not referring to our element of banter). Now you're hiding behind words in a thread title when you know full well the OP might be (a) using a common term regardless of how useful it is, or (b) simply using the wrong term. It's not an evangelical Bible study; you don't have to take every word literally as if spoken by god herself.
To reiterate, the issue in AFL circles generally and on Nick's specifically for several years now has always been something like whether we ought to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
It would be nice if someone took up the actual issue at stake and provided a serious argument for the claim, demonstrating this deleterious impact and showing that the behaviour of footballers is of greater importance than any other social signal out there we accept as a normal part of life and growing up.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Neil, I think you'll find your main contention has already been addressed earlier in the thread. As I stated on page 6:
| David wrote: | | This is merely a reflection of the pop cultural understanding of the term 'role model'. What does it actually mean? What do you think the kids mean when they nominate a sports star or actor as a role model? Does it mean "I aspire to be like that person in all of their facets?", or simply "I aspire to be like that person in certain key facets?" |
The fact that 18% of preteens cite football players as their 'role models' and 35% list their parents doesn't mean that footballers and parents have the same amount of influence over each respective group. In fact, we know for a fact (and really should know intuitively) that this isn't even vaguely true. Football players, as PTID argued somewhere else in the thread, are mere ciphers upon which pre-existing values are placed, like singers or cartoon characters; parents, teachers and family members, on the other hand, have a constant, meaningful impact on the child's development as a person. This is the resounding conclusion that Neil's studies in the original post point to, and I don't think surveying 9 year-olds about who they consider to be their 'role model' provides much evidence to the contrary. All it really shows is that it's a term with a flexible definition.
Otherwise, you make this rather curious claim:
| Neil Appleby wrote: | Players may be 'heroes' to footy junkies of any age. My first Collingwood hero was Laurie Hill and then later, Peter McKenna, Barry Price, Billy Picken, John Greening, Tony Shaw, Peter Daicos and Scotty Burns to name but a few.
I loved the way these guys played the game. Were they role models? Nope. For me, players were not role models as such, but I did like them and 'was' them in backyard games.
Players don't enter the game thinking they'll become role models and many make terrible role models, but they soon learn that they are role models whether they like it or not.
Certainly the AFL thinks players are role models and go to extreme lengths to control their men. So do the clubs; CEOs would control every waking moment if they could. |
So, on the one hand your personal childhood experience indicates that footballers are not role models, and yet you are now convinced that they are? Huh? That doesn't make sense. If Laurie Hill wasn't a role model for you, why would Ben Cousins be a role model for Little Johnny? You haven't explained that at all. |
David, the amount of influence is not what the question is.
The "pop culture" understanding of what is a role model is what the majority of people work with, so regardless of what psychologists say when most people talk about role models they have a common understanding which is different to the definition you use. This thread IMO was based on the common understanding.
You and others that oppose the idea of footballers being role models have conceded they can be a positive influence. Given that concession, they can also be a negative one.
So many of the posts by people who believe that footballers aren't role models cite examples of isolated bad behaviour and say that this won't encourage little David jr to do the same thing, and you're completely correct but it in no way supports your argument, if anything it proves the reverse.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | You and others that oppose the idea of footballers being role models have conceded they can be a positive influence. Given that concession, they can also be a negative one. |
To the bolded bit — not really. I've acknowledged that, in some respects, a player's sporting attributes might have an impact on a child — say, they might model their playing style on Stephen Milne — but I wouldn't go as far as to say that a player's 'positive' off-field behaviour (say, visiting hospitals or converting to Christianity) could lead a youngster to choose the path of righteousness. Indeed, I strongly believe that any off-field behaviour, positive or negative, has negligible influence. The research seems to bear this out.
The on-field/off-field distinction, as acknowledged by SZ, is not arbitrary. In fact, it explains a lot about the way our society interacts with public figures, and why the desire to police footballers' private lives has little logical basis.
As for the definition of the term 'role model', I think much of the problem lies in the phrase's ambiguity. As this thread has demonstrated, it's confusing enough for adults; and yet, 7 to 13 year-old kids are supposed to have a sufficiently concrete understanding about it to answer a survey on the topic!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | September Zeros wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I've explained my point in this thread already, I see no need to revisit that as no one has been able to successfully prove it incorrect.
Jurrah's behaviour is totally unlikely to influence any kids to drink drive as I have explained. This does not mean in any way that footballers cannot be role models. |
Yes, but "role model" in some meaningful sense, or "role model" in some trivial sense which has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
The issue is and always has been whether we need to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
The term "role model" is a distraction; it is insincere for people to keep hiding behind it. |
What was the title of this thread again?
Just tell him he's right Stui. After reading a few of his replies in few different threads... It's all he wants to hear and it's all he'll listen too.
Everything else is either trivial, a good hiding place, rediculous bla bla bla
What's that saying.....a wise man knows nothing of his wisdom. |
More insincerity (and no, I'm not referring to our element of banter). Now you're hiding behind words in a thread title when you know full well the OP might be (a) using a common term regardless of how useful it is, or (b) simply using the wrong term. It's not an evangelical Bible study; you don't have to take every word literally as if spoken by god herself.
To reiterate, the issue in AFL circles generally and on Nick's specifically for several years now has always been something like whether we ought to police the behaviour of footballers lest any "antisocial" behaviour they engage in have a deleterious effect on children.
It would be nice if someone took up the actual issue at stake and provided a serious argument for the claim, demonstrating this deleterious impact and showing that the behaviour of footballers is of greater importance than any other social signal out there we accept as a normal part of life and growing up. |
Meh!!
Why don't you just have a conversation with yourself in pm and post it when you have a conclusion, seeing as how you believe only your interpretation of the question is the correct one and everyone else is hiding behind ramble ramble ramble bla bla bla. Zzzzzzz
I've said my bit. Which if you pulled your head out ur arse you'd see agrees with yours and David's point of view on off field discretion and its rather insignificant impact on Jnr. Your so busy trying to be right you don't even see when someone agrees with you.
But guess what tinkerbell, footballers are still role models.
Stuff it in your pipe, toke it, smoke it, and choke on it. 
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
