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).
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
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
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).
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
Further, Andrew mentions that picking and choosing coaching methods that ‘come from both camps’ is an incoherent idea for
As a constructivist (cognitive) I can use social constructionist (ecological) methods. And I do! I’m trained in SFBT (a social constructionist therapy)
In summary, coaches can use any method they so choose for their
More from Sport
It's Sunday, Fed blackout, am recovering from soccer match, sipping on double espresso, so of course a perfect time to take on Tyler Cowen here. 🙂
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
It is hardly phony, especially on social media, to refer to IS-LM models and the like as \u201cKeynesian.\u201d Krugman pushing it and, for better or worse, rising in popularity.
— tylercowen (@tylercowen) January 17, 2021
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
