 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | 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. |
Your trying too hard to find the answers to this question within the pages of Sdorow. Text book psychology doesnt have all the answers. And saying OEP is "totally wrong" is a little harsh I feel and unfair to his post which I thought had some merit and was on the right track.
Let me pose you a question. Can a player be a "role model" or as you insist on it being said " a significant other" to another player within the club?
Can swan be a significant other to Ben Sinclair? Can swan be a significant other to Sinclairs kid brother or Sister who spend a lot of time around the club and him?
I still retain that there is a very definite devide between on and off field influence. And agree thoroughly after much discussion here that off field influence is negligible to zero. Bot OEM points out its not always the case and depends on the exact nature of the relationship. And though I disagree with him that the strength of the "idolisation" has any impact a think the strength of the "relationship" to the footballer does.
I still maintain that footballers can be role models within very definite football related confines "on field". Any off field related influence or modelling would depend on the interpersonal relationship to the footballer themselves. Without any relationship directly to the player (being a significant other" ) iinfluence would be zero. But can they be role models- yes, especially when they become significant others.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
 |
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Some more research
Hope it helps
If you disagree produce some evidence/links/research papers etc
“The perceived drinking habits of sports stars and its relationship to the drinking levels of young people has never been examined empirically, despite these sporting heroes often being touted as influential role models for young people,” said lead researcher Dr Kerry O’Brien, a lecturer in Manchester’s School of Psychological Sciences.
“Our research shows that young people, both sporting participants and non-sporting participants, don’t appear to be influenced by the drinking habits of high-profile sportspeople as depicted in the mass media.”
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=5657
The suggestion that famous athletes serve as role models for underage fans is "rubbish," say researchers writing in Drug and Alcohol Review. The authors found that the loutish and drunken behavior of some pro athletes – routinely reported in the media – has little or no effect on the drinking habits of young people.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/sports_star_role_models_rubbish_researchers_say
"When we were younger, most of us looked up to someone. For the majority of us that would mean our parents, but on top of that it wasn't unusual to also find ourselves looking up to heroes on television and in films."
And
"Your children are likely to pick up role models as well just as you might, and it's important that they get more positive benefits from this than negative. So how do you make sure that they have a positive experience in this regard? First of all you need to ensure that you yourself are a good role model for them."
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/16012/1/How-Role-Models-Can-Influence-Lives.html
Exploring the influence of sports celebrities on Generation Y behavioural intentions
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:19138
The Influence of Sporting Role Models on the Moral Development and Prosocial Behaviour of Children and Youth
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/65410414/influence-sporting-role-models-moral-development-prosocial-behaviour-children-youth
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK,
Lets start with some definitions shall we? What is a "Role Model"?
First Wikipedia
| Quote: | The term role model generally means any "person who serves as an example, whose behaviour is emulated by others".[1]
The term first appeared in Robert K. Merton's socialization research of medical students.[2] Merton hypothesized that individuals compare themselves with reference groups of people who occupy the social role to which the individual aspires.[2]
According to a survey of teachers in the United Kingdom conducted in 2008 by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, young people most frequently chose sports stars as role models, followed by pop stars. Many, however, simply aspired to be "famous for being famous", believing that fame and fortune could be easily accessed through reality television.[3] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_model
How bout the Cambridge Dictionary
| Quote: | a person who someone admires and whose behaviour they try to copy
Sports stars are role models for thousands of youngsters. |
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/role-model
Merriam-Webster dictionary
| Quote: | Definition of ROLE MODEL
: a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others
See role model defined for English-language learners »
See role model defined for kids »
Examples of ROLE MODEL
Athletes should remember that they are role models.
First Known Use of ROLE MODEL
1957
|
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role%20model
Anyone else notice a trend here? The term "Young people" does not automatically associate that they are young children. Teenagers are young people, as are people in their early 20's. Also no where in the definition does it say that role models are exclusively for young people.
So lets just toss the whole argument about young children in the bin as inaccurate and irrelevant.
The sharp eyed may have also noticed the other constant, Sports Stars are constant examples of role models.
Not enough?
How bout some of the links Neil provided.
Here's the last one.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/65410414/influence-sporting-role-models-moral-development-prosocial-behaviour-children-youth
If you read it, the abstract of the article says this.
| Quote: | | The article focuses on the influence of sporting role models on the moral development and prosocial behavior of youth and children. It is stated that responsible people in sport always function as important role models in the enhancement of social and fair behavior. It is stated that in sports training and competition, not only athletic achievements should be highlighted and praised, but also social and fair behavior. |
I'm sorry, doesn't this say that sports people are role models? 
Now the argument that kids don't emulate bad behaviour of sports stars.
Dur. Assuming the kid has the proper positive role models, the sight of Fev on a drunken spree with a dildo is hardly likely to have the average 10 year old raiding dads scotch bottle and mums toy collection. Partly at least because the behaviour is accompanied with hard overtones of how wrong the behaviour is.
But just because they don't directly copy the bad behaviour doesn't mean it hasn't had an influence on their thinking and their future behaviour. The message retained here among all the reinforced messages not to drink, to behave etc, is that someone CAN earn shitpiles of money playing sport, be idolised by millions of people and STILL get on the piss.
Same as Ben Cousins. Lots of people will have admired him for the way he played the game, his ability to push himself to exhaustion and keep going. Now it turns out he was doing this for years while abusing coke and ice.
Again, kids aren't going to run out and hop on the speed to be like Ben Cousins, but depending on their age and associations, they will have been constantly reinforced by parents etc that drugs are bad, kill you, ruin your life etc. Here is classic reinforcement that contradicts all those teachings. This bloke could do drugs and win a premiership and a brownlow.
Is that going to "Cause" timmy to take Ice? highly unlikely. Is it giving him the thought that maybe not all the stuff people told him is true and maybe drugs aren't that bad?
If the AFL didn't come down hard on this behaviour, what else does that add to the message?
Want some more? Here's another of Neils links.
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:19138
| Quote: | | Results from a survey containing 250 members of Generation Y revealed that Generation Y consider sport celebrities as role models. |
Case made, sports stars are role models. / thread
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Nash Rising
Joined: 27 Nov 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Great reading Stui, excellent post. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
Case made, sports stars are role models. / thread |
"The suggestion that famous athletes serve as role models for underage fans is "rubbish," say researchers"
"When we were younger, most of us looked up to someone. For the majority of us that would mean our parents"
Two other links I provided
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Only one of those quotes says that athletes aren't role models and that's the opinion of one group of researchers. I've provided 5 links that categorically say that athletes/sports stars are role models.
Do you want me to find some more ?, should take all of 3 minutes.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
Case made, sports stars are role models. / thread |
"The suggestion that famous athletes serve as role models for underage fans is "rubbish," say researchers"
"When we were younger, most of us looked up to someone. For the majority of us that would mean our parents"
Two other links I provided |
I didn't look up to my parents, I looked up to evil knevil, Dale buggins, Peter McKenna,and Peter brock!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Only one of those quotes says that athletes aren't role models and that's the opinion of one group of researchers. I've provided 5 links that categorically say that athletes/sports stars are role models.
Do you want me to find some more ?, should take all of 3 minutes. |
Have a beer instead! More productive!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Only one of those quotes says that athletes aren't role models and that's the opinion of one group of researchers. I've provided 5 links that categorically say that athletes/sports stars are role models.
Do you want me to find some more ?, should take all of 3 minutes. |
Wikipedia, Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary are not researchers.
The other two I found.
Go ahead find more links it is tedious sifting through all the media opinion pieces. 
Basically the types of role models are
Negative RM used by the media example "OMG Dane Swan drank two glasses of lite beer at Xmas. He is a role model for impressionable young children. He should be sacked immediately". This meme is spread by the media continuously and is bullshit.
Positive RM Kids identify with a player because of his hard work dedication and skills. They want to play football like him. Other criteria are involved in becoming such a RM. Ethnicity, background, similarities in life. An indigenous kid is more likely to have Adam Goodes as a positive RM than Travis Cloke. A kid who suffers from asthma will identify with a player who is also an asthmatic.
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
I didn't look up to my parents, I looked up to evil knevil, Dale buggins, Peter McKenna,and Peter brock! |
Bad parents? 
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Only one of those quotes says that athletes aren't role models and that's the opinion of one group of researchers. I've provided 5 links that categorically say that athletes/sports stars are role models.
Do you want me to find some more ?, should take all of 3 minutes. |
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. It took me 30 seconds to find hundreds of links to studies which do not at all use the naive dunderheaded definition you're using, though you wouldn't have noticed that because you don't actually know what the articles are talking about as you're bedazzled by keywords and have no interest in understanding the problem in either its rational or empirical dimensions.
First of all, the dictionary definition is useless because, while you are apparently not aware of this, dictionaries merely capture popular usage. If the popular usage is empty garbage, the dictionary definition will be empty garbage, as it is in this instance. The dictionary also has definitions of ghosts, angels, bunyips and goblins, but they too are imaginary.
As for the usage in academia, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the naive definition in the small handful of studies that bother wasting time testing it. Doctor Phil might talk about "role models", but ask him what role models are and how role models affect people and he won't be able to tell you anything scientifically meaningful--he'll just keep repeating the term and assuming the flat earth understanding. In virtually every study you care to look up on the influence of third parties on people, the term "role model" is applied not to remote TV personas, but to people actively involved in and directly engaging and impacting someone's life, such as a teacher, mentor, coach, manager, colleague, advisor, counselor, and so on. This does not in any way at all meet the naive and empty definition which is the basis of this entire discussion. So not only are people conflating two definitions which have entirely different implications, for anyone who bothered to read the thread or the articles concerned properly, the definition of interest--the naive mythological pop definition you keep using--has neither empirical support or a mechanism of action. This should set off warning bells that we're dealing with ghosts, angels, bunyips and goblins, not a scientific phenomenon.
To reiterate, if you look at academic studies researching this and like notions and see "who" the role models who do actually empirically affect others are, you will see they are not detached TV archetypes, but people who actually interact with the subjects concerned in an interpersonal role. And this is because, as explained, the entire biology is designed to be affected by intimates in full dialectic (two-way/symmetrical) interaction. As explained, if our brains were so plastic that remote personas could have a significant effect on us, news bulletins would give us post-traumatic stress disorder and reading the story of Abraham would inspire us to sacrifice our children.
Moreover, not only is there no empirical evidence that supposed role models impact people in the way assumed, and no mechanism of action for this occurring, we would still have to go on and ask a further question: is perfection really a good "role model"? Where is the evidence that more perfect people are better "role models" than less perfect people? This is yet another quasi-religious assumption in what is just another fundamentalist moral panic.
I see most of the studies you refer to have no statistical data and argument available for us to analyse. This is because you're groping around for things beyond your field of knowledge and think linking to things in blind hope equates to a good argument. But it doesn't; all of the serious studies have sophisticated arguments, statistical and logical, for teasing out which factors are responsible for what portion of which effects--and we can follow and test them. Without such arguments you don't know why Michael Jordan is selling Nikes; is it about his exposure, sporting ability, sporting ability granting him exposure in a circular process, morality, media coverage, shoe design, shoe branding, the parent company producing the shoe, the psychiatry of the buyer (factors internal to the subject), or the psychiatry of the target market in conjunction with one or more other variable? This is not a trivial exercise, but requires sophisticated argumentation which you have not provided. And, indeed, I doubt anyone will because the distance between Michael Jordan and the buyer is so far it's hard to know to that sort of resolution. Certainly I can tell you from a strictly marketing POV it's purely about coverage and exposure; the valency of coverage (positive or negative) only has an effect if the branding is aligned with a valency (angel versus bad boy branding), or the valency somehow reduces coverage.
You need to understand far more about the science and the data to say anything meaningful about it, and a few links to abstracts or e-zine articles you imagine support your view but on analysis actually don't doesn't change that. Not that that would stop most people clinging to the views they inherited uncritically in childhood--especially when such views appear to grant them authority over some segment of society they'd love to bring to heel, meanwhile distracting from the fact that it is they as significant others who are actually the ones front and centre to the problem at hand.
_________________
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: | |
|
^
Ptiddy, as usual I really don't give a fat rats clacker for all the academic bullshit. You stop embarrassing yourself.
It's extremely easy to prove the point you want via research. The people who publish shit only publish the stuff that agrees with what they wanted to prove in the first place.
I also pointed to surveys that said high school kids consider athletes role models or did you miss that?
The gap in the level of influence of the negative role model behaviour is so easily explained that I would be embarrassed for you if you needed me to explain it to you. It is what "justifies" the researchers point but on no account does it support the notion that athletes are not role models.
_________________
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: | |
|
^You have no mechanism of action, no data and no argument. All you have is a desire to cling to naive hand-me-down ideas. No big deal--that hardly makes you unusual.
_________________
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: | |
|
^
I'll take that as a concession of defeat. Ta. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
The gap in the level of influence of the negative role model behaviour is so easily explained that I would be embarrassed for you if you needed me to explain it to you. It is what "justifies" the researchers point but on no account does it support the notion that athletes are not role models. |
Explain to me the gap in the level of influence of the negative role model behavior.
I will not be embarassed.
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
