Authors Daniel Abrahams
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrect…
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best \u2018depends\u2019 on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.
— Andrew D Wilson (@PsychScientists) November 27, 2020
I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively