 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| September Zeros wrote: | | David wrote: | | Thanks SZ. I think it's relevant to discuss the off-field stuff because that's the context in which the role model argument is most used. Jobe Watson inspiring kids to play football isn't a controversial idea; indeed — as much as Neil gives us reason to look at even that skeptically — most people would have little need to argue against it. The other angle is more contentious because it underpins the idea that footballers should be held to a higher level of personal accountability compared to the rest of the population. As indefensible as that concept is, the frustrating thing is that it remains the dominant paradigm. Even players themselves cite it as a valid justification for their own punishment. It's a shame more football journalists don't make it a topic of critical discussion. |
Good point. |
marley williams. would we even care about his current predicament if he weren't a footballer?
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
 |
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | September Zeros wrote: | | David wrote: | | Thanks SZ. I think it's relevant to discuss the off-field stuff because that's the context in which the role model argument is most used. Jobe Watson inspiring kids to play football isn't a controversial idea; indeed — as much as Neil gives us reason to look at even that skeptically — most people would have little need to argue against it. The other angle is more contentious because it underpins the idea that footballers should be held to a higher level of personal accountability compared to the rest of the population. As indefensible as that concept is, the frustrating thing is that it remains the dominant paradigm. Even players themselves cite it as a valid justification for their own punishment. It's a shame more football journalists don't make it a topic of critical discussion. |
Good point. |
marley williams. would we even care about his current predicament if he weren't a footballer? |
Probably not
But his behavior, if guilty, does not make kids go out and assault anyone.
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
Underdog
Joined: 02 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | It's that clear on-field/off-field divide again, Underdog. Do you think Elliott models his behaviour towards women on Milne as well? |
I think you are trying to make this alot more than it is David, just because you look up to someone or they are a role model to you doesnt mean you are going to do everything that they do
Footballers are footballers 24/7 these days, so on or off feild is irelevant |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | September Zeros wrote: | | David wrote: | | Thanks SZ. I think it's relevant to discuss the off-field stuff because that's the context in which the role model argument is most used. Jobe Watson inspiring kids to play football isn't a controversial idea; indeed — as much as Neil gives us reason to look at even that skeptically — most people would have little need to argue against it. The other angle is more contentious because it underpins the idea that footballers should be held to a higher level of personal accountability compared to the rest of the population. As indefensible as that concept is, the frustrating thing is that it remains the dominant paradigm. Even players themselves cite it as a valid justification for their own punishment. It's a shame more football journalists don't make it a topic of critical discussion. |
Good point. |
marley williams. would we even care about his current predicament if he weren't a footballer? |
Probably not
But his behavior, if guilty, does not make kids go out and assault anyone. |
True. But if he is guilty, and gets a lenient go because, or is perceived as getting one, because he plays AFL, that's not good either.
Breaking someone's jaw is pretty serious, just ask the mum of the victim. Maybe he asked for it, maybe he didn't. Doesn't matter.
I'd still prefer our players were tucked up in bed by 1pm, rather than drunk out on the town, and fair game for anyone who wants to make a name for themselves.
Look at what happened to both Pendles and Cloke. Neither was drunk or had an argument with their attackers, but I'm guessing at least one was attacked because he played footy, weather for collingwood or anyone else.
Is it my business? No. But it sure is the clubs. We lost the 05 money because of the off field behavior of a player. Maybe that's not fair but it's a fact of life.
As is the belief that footy players should be some kind of role model. As a fairly intelligent being, I see how that's wrong, as a mum, I'd rather Luke balls number was on the back of my kids jumper!
Hopefully there is some kind of provocation. Some sort of excuse. If not, well hopefully the punishment fits the crime. Plenty on here knocked Nick Darcy for breaking someone's jaw, does a collingwood player have immunity from that?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Underdog wrote: | | David wrote: | | It's that clear on-field/off-field divide again, Underdog. Do you think Elliott models his behaviour towards women on Milne as well? |
I think you are trying to make this alot more than it is David, just because you look up to someone or they are a role model to you doesnt mean you are going to do everything that they do
Footballers are footballers 24/7 these days, so on or off feild is irelevant |
Can't you see that you've argued yourself into a corner? Clearly, the fact that Elliott looks up to Milne's on-field technique and not his bedroom technique isn't some pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey exercise. It's not like there's a 50/50 chance that any given player will pick one as opposed to the other.
There are very good reasons why an aspiring footballer might look up to another footballer specifically for his football-related attributes. It's much more unlikely that an aspiring footballer — or anyone, for that matter — would seek to model their lives on a footballer based on their non-footballing attributes. So, in fact, the distinction between on-field and off-field is totally relevant, and you're totally wrong.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Bullshit David.
I can't believe this thread is still going. It's the first time I've had decent internet in a week so I haven't read all the crap in here and I'll respond in detail once I have. But to follow some of the thought processes I have read, everyone who does something wrong can blame their parents as they're the only role model that counts. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's not what I'm arguing at all! Obviously parents are but one factor (albeit a big one) in a child's psychological development; you also have to factor in other authority figures, peer groups and the various kinds of media they're exposed to. My point is that footballers — more to the point, footballers' off-field behaviour — wouldn't figure very high on that scale. The impact of their off-field behaviour on the beliefs and behaviour of children would be somewhere between negligible to zero. It seems obvious enough, but a few researchers have gone out of their way to prove that it's so and reported their findings, which Neil posted in the OP.
I'm actually surprised that anyone would even consider that a contentious point to begin with.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Bullshit David.
I can't believe this thread is still going. It's the first time I've had decent internet in a week so I haven't read all the crap in here and I'll respond in detail once I have. But to follow some of the thought processes I have read, everyone who does something wrong can blame their parents as they're the only role model that counts. |
Well you didn't read it very well, then.
The term is "significant others". Footballers, pop stars, and fairy tale characters are insignificant trivial others. They're selected in as an expression of identity for a psychology which has already largely been formed. It's not rocket science.
From there take a look at the social context. We plainly know, and unambiguously so, that socio-economics and broader social stability correlates substantially with behaviour at a statistical level.
The phrase "role model" would have to be about the dumbest and emptiest ever created, unless, as I say, you're referring simply to emulation. And if it's moral emulation you're after, the names Gandhi, King and Mandela are some of the ones which are likely to come to mind.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Without knowing how much each individual person admires, looks up to, etc their respective role model(s) it's impossible to say how much or how little effect that role models good or bad behaviour has on the person.
Trying to argue the point of either way is impossible because you can't generalise and individuals thought process.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | Without knowing how much each individual person admires, looks up to, etc their respective role model(s) it's impossible to say how much or how little effect that role models good or bad behaviour has on the person.
Trying to argue the point of either way is impossible because you can't generalise and individuals thought process. |
Totally wrong again.
By definition, if a person has a significant effect on a child they will be involved directly in the child's life, and that makes them a "significant other", not a bloke seen on TV every now and then.
Kids didn't "rebel" because of the Sex Pistols; the natural individuation process of their development as homo sapiens was externalised in the superficial form of Sex Pistols iconography.
People can externally attach to anything from latex stockings to Satanic symbols, but that has nothing to do with identity formation--the central claim in this topic--unless the child concerned has been so utterly abused a pair of latex stockings is preferable to the significant adults directly involved in their life.
The entire brain of the child is wired to attach to physically proximate adults and begins to do so even in the womb--you can't reinvent basic science just to justify wielding authority over others. The child then builds on that development by seeking identity within the proximate culture, which is why socio-economics then takes over. The proximate culture includes peers once again involved in the child's life, and footballers once again do not qualify as important even in this stage.
In the end what people are claiming is that footballers play a role in human development. I mean, not to be too mean, but it's embarrassingly laughable when you put it that way.
_________________
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
Last edited by pietillidie on Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Look up the definition of "role model" , then stop making arguments about children.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Look up the definition of "role model" , then stop making arguments about children. |
Now you're shifting to emulation which has clearly already been dealt with. Read the thread properly for goodness' sake.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What age does a child stop being a child. That fact alone would have a significant effect on your arguement PTiD.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My x, a well respected Psychologist, used to talk and show me things in her text books that used to say how a males brain used to finish developing around the ages of 22-24.
Take that as you will. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Brenny wrote: | My x, a well respected Psychologist, used to talk and show me things in her text books that used to say how a males brain used to finish developing around the ages of 22-24.
Take that as you will. |
She's right--I heard Sapolsky say 25 years in a video not too long ago (referring to the frontal cortex, from memory). What that means is that the brain is still somewhat plastic until that time. But again, what matters here is not that experiences can leverage plasticity to enact change in the brain, it's what kinds of experiences can leverage plasticity to enact persistent harmful change in the brain, which is really what is being claimed here. (Technically, all learning is based on a neuronal plasticity which is lifelong, otherwise we could never have "new" knowledge).
To put it practically, seeing some drunk footballer with a pink dildo on his head on Mad Monday does not quite do the same thing to the brain as being raped and beaten during a stint in prison. Similarly, having thousands of warm and encouraging interactions with a range of quality intimate significant others over the first decade of life has a weighting infinitely greater than being exposed to a few Herald Sun shots of St. Kilda players comparing their wieners.
When you think it through it's really stating the obvious; however, so persistent is the notion that society is collapsing due to the decadence of footballers, and so desperate is the desire to control and penalise others, apparently people are willing to embarrass themselves by clinging to cringeworthy folkloric nonsense.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
