Suvvia, a me sembra che qua si stia parlando di argomenti interessanti a tutti (metodologie di allenamento) e perfettamente In Topic. Poi siamo tutti adulti e vaccinati per valutare se dare retta a consigli o considerazioni di chicchessia (a prescindere dalle sue referenze) o se considerarle spazzatura, così come accade su praticamente ogni Forum.
Gli argomenti che state mettendo di mezzo voi ora (presunte regole, competenze, ecc..) quelli sì sono OT e non fregano a nessuno.
Senza polemica eh ?
Massimo
Ti ringrazio per l'intervento, leggiti questo articolo che ho reperito in rete, posto la parte +interessante, in modo completo può essere letto quì
[url]http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/thermo/thermo.htm[/URL]
This discourse considers coaching development and/or education schemes and programs. However, since many avenues for the content involve practicing individual coaches, there will be an occasional need to consider them and their contribution to educational enterprises.
Definitions
Belief-based Coaching is a common and traditional form of coaching. Its guides for practices are usually a mix of personal experiences, some limited education about sport sciences, selected incomplete knowledge of current coaching practices, and self-belief in that how coaching is conducted is right. Changes in coaching practices occur through self-selection of activities. The accumulated knowledge of belief-based coaching is subjective, biased, unstructured, and mostly lacking in accountability. Belief-based coaching also includes pseudo-scientific coaching. Pseudo-scientists attempt to give the impression of scientific knowledge but invariably their knowledge is incomplete resulting in false/erroneous postulations. Belief-based coaching is normally the foundation of most coaching development schemes. Organizations are closed (isolated) systems resisting intrusions of contrary evidence that might alter the constancy of the beliefs and social structure. Logical (knowledge) entropy increases with
time in these structures.
Evidence-based Coaching is a restricted and relatively rare form of coaching. Its guides for practices are principles derived from replicated reputable studies reported by authoritative sources in a public manner. Often there is consideration of objective studies that do and do not support principles. Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects. The accumulated knowledge of evidence-based coaching is objectively verified and structured. However, evidence-based coaching principles are developed in a fragmented scientific world. It could be somewhat difficult to gather all the relevant knowledge into an educational scheme. Organizations are open systems structured to constantly accept new knowledge and concepts. Logical (knowledge) entropy decreases markedly as order is established.
Entropy (knowledge or logical) measures the degree of disorder or error in a system.
"It is a matter of common experience that disorder will tend to increase if things are left to themselves; one has only to leave a house without repairs to see that" (Hawking, 2002, p. 76). It is not measured in physical units like thermodynamic entropy but rather, is measured by some imposed convention.
Second Law of Thermodynamics. When entropy is considered, it usually is in association with the
Second Law of Thermodynamics which states
"Entropy in a closed system can never decrease." Logical entropy in an isolated system always increases with time. Moreover, when two isolated systems are joined, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the entropies of the individual systems. The join of isolated systems results in multiplicative logical entropy. In layman's terms, the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is
Murphy's Law, "
things always get worse."
Belief-based Coaching Development
Coach education and development systems have a high degree of isolation. It is contended that coaching development displays much entropy and therefore, is in accord with the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Some of the characteristics of coaching development and activity as related to the
Second Law are listed below.
- When coaches are left alone and do not continually upgrade their knowledge with evidence-based events, they invent matters that lead to greater disorder [error].
- When coaches steeped in entropy combine, such as at "World clinics" or the writing of coach-education manuals, the result is greater myth and confusion than improved clarity of knowledge.
- The only way to improve coaching knowledge is to change entropic individuals (coaches full of unfounded beliefs) to accept valid ordered knowledge, that is, evidence-based knowledge. The introduction of orderliness, if it is accepted, reduces error .
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics has a behavioral counterpart. With each human repetition of an idea, error is introduced. Eventually, "the idea" has little resemblance to the original. This is seen in the children's game of "Chinese telephone" when a statement is
ered to another child, and ering exchanges are repeated several times to new children. The end of the game is to see how much the original message was distorted through the repetition. Other examples are in religions. Few if any modern day religions encompass only their original dicta. For example, "maternality", a central feature of the Jewish faith, is not a basic characteristic of the Judaic Talmud. More frequently, Islamic pronouncements have no grounding in the Koran. The Catholic Church offers "interpretations" of one version of the bible, most leading to greater disorder.
The development of belief-based coaching principles is akin to "
rationalism", the subjective method that relies largely on human reason as being the source of knowledge. Rationalists believed that an important group of foundational concepts are known intuitively through reason, as opposed to experience or reliable observation. They maintained that truths could be deduced with absolute certainty from innate ideas, much the way theorems in geometry are deduced from axioms. When producing coaching "
guidelines", coaches are often imbued with intellectual and knowledge capacities that are unwarranted.
In sport, many practices are advocated without any evidence of their value or relatedness to performance. For example, in swimming the concept of "
lift" forces for propulsion has never been directly observed or measured. It is a belief-based entity and the more it is discussed, the greater becomes its entropy and its movement away from the original concept (theory). There is overwhelming misinformation (error) in the "
science of swimming" concerning the topic of lift [For more on lift, see the specific example presented later in this article].
When the coaching knowledge of a sport is based on "
self-evident truths", sport participants are threatened with exposure to a preponderance of coaching errors rather than sound practices. When a sport's knowledge is based upon the self-discovery or limited experiences of personal observations of a few, entropy will be rampant. When the leader of a powerful sport organization adheres to the value of belief-based coaching over evidence-based coaching, the sport is in trouble and particularly evidenced by the general slow changes in performance of its participants. In several cases, performances might even worsen rather than improve. The following assertion of a powerful sport leader exemplifies the expanding entropic nature of the sport.
In truth, the fact that a scientist tells me that something "cannot be", says to me only that they have not yet found the proper instrument to examine the case, because endlessly repetitive experience confirming the same results is more significant, (in my limited mind) than all the scientists in the world saying something does not work.....(I am not speaking of the silly things like . . . , but like some of the other "myths" as Brent calls them.) [Personal communication, anonymous, January, 2003].
What is readily observed in coaching is that when one has an idea or experience that "
sounds good" it is promoted as knowledge. In coaching experience, if something "
works" at least once in an important setting, it is likely to be repeated as a "
valuable" coaching procedure, despite completely ignoring all the times it does not work with other athletes. That has led to a set of characteristic coaching behaviors that often lead to the following manifestation: If an athlete wins, the coach will take credit and explain the reasons for the success. If an athlete loses, there is an inquisition into what the athlete did wrong to produce the "
failed result".
Man is completely controlled by the laws of physics, even in behavioral choices. Therefore, the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is validly applicable to singular and group human behavior. There is no free will, spirit of the group, personal selection, etc. Claims of such are more an indication of ignorance than knowledge. Thus, freely promoted unsubstantiated coaching initiatives and discoveries as being valuable "
guidelines" are most likely in error.
The coaching profession has frequently admitted a preponderance of errors in coaching. In the 1960s, coaching clinics, symposia, and more extensive education schemes began to emerge as expected activities of sport coaches. These educational experiences presented knowledge that was supposed to improve coaching effectiveness. In the beginning, a common theme was that the practices introduced to sport in the aftermath of the World War II were steeped in the "
out-dated" ("
erroneous") procedures of the pre-war years. In the 1970s, the errors of coaching in the 1950s and early 1960s were "
exposed" and better or "
correct" directives were presented. In the 1980s, new activities were embraced with greater enthusiasm to advance on what had accumulated or needed to be discarded in the previous decades. The continual revision of what should be coached and how to do it not only resulted in the expansion of revisionist beliefs, but also implied a significant extent of erroneous past practices. At that time, this behavior resulted in some individuals forming conclusions about the consistency of coaching behavior and education. One interpretation of those conclusions was as follows.
- In 20 years time, the coaching practices of today will be said to have been wrong.
- If what is being coached today will be shown to be wrong in the future, why not coach the way they will be coaching in 20 years?
- It takes at least 10 and more like 20 years to implement discoveries in sport science into general coaching lore, if at all.
- Why not scour today's applied sport science for coaching implications and coach with that knowledge today rather than waiting for 20 years?
</I>In some isolated cases, the above conclusions and logic were implemented with outstanding success (e.g., Canadian swimming, 1976-84; Canadian wrestling, 1976-1984; Canadian cross-country skiing 1984-1988). However, their insignificance in relation to the total sporting world did not impact the profession in any marked way. Despite the exploding field of applied sport science, belief-based coaching practices still dominate to this day.
Evidence-based coaching makes predictions that can be verified (observed). Belief-based coaching usually explains why an event occurred and is protected by time past. Belief-based coaches relate why something happened with little chance of ever testing the associations depicted in the explanation. A saving-face for belief-based coaches when predicting is its appeal to vagueness or recognition of an inability to predict. This serves to inflate the
Principle of Uncertainty beyond reasonable limits so that error can be disguised as uncontrolled "
nature" rather than deliberate disorder. In scientific and "
school-yard" terms, that is a "
cop-out".
In life as we know it, there are many more disordered states than ordered ones. Without verifiable evidence, there are many variously unconstrained coaching states. Evidence limits the lack of constraints, much in the same way that a jig-saw puzzle arrives unsolved in a box in complete disorder only to become ordered as pieces are fit together on the way to a singularity.
Coaching will remain disordered unless evidence-based principles are introduced to the knowledge base. A weakness in this requirement is its applications. Individuals who now lead coaching disorder would have to change and become more ordered when evidence-based predictions are introduced into coaching practices. That is a threat to organizational inertia (the comfort level of disorder perpetuated by "
leaders"), and so it is unlikely to be altered. Fear, usually expressed as derision of good sports science, is the hallmark of a perpetuation of disorder (ignorance) in sport coaching.
The challenge is to discriminate "
good" from "
bad" sport science. Bad sport science usually stems from a restricted source established by invalid scientific procedures such as the "
appeal to authority", "
armchair theorizing", or the postulation of "
self-evident truths". Verifiability is lacking in all of these procedures. On the other hand, good sport science emanates from the practices of natural science. Principles are derived from independent replications of investigations that inductively lead to the same conclusions. Such conclusions are usually conveyed more strongly if done by someone not involved with the original investigations (an independent source or rigorous form of analysis such as "
meta-analysis"). An example is in order.
E' in inglese, ma può essere tradotto con un traduttore automatico, anche se poi alcuni termini vanno corretti, cmq il senso si capisce bene, e penso che tu non abbia difficoltà a leggerlo in inglese.
Poi mi scrivi cosa ne pensi.
Ciao
? 
