h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I read the linked article, which is a blanket condemnation of team sports in schools. The author describes being made to feel worthless by teammates because she was not good at the sports, and states that these feelings produced lasting wounds.
One the one hand I see what she means. In a physical
competition people less gifted will do worse and feel that they let down their teams.
But what about striving as a group for a common goal? Are only nonphysical / intellectual goals acceptable? Won't dumb or nonartistic kids feel worthless in these situations? Is there no hope for the group? Must each of us be a loner, Dottie; a rebel?
Even this linked sportophobic author acknowledges that kids can move, and run, and that those things are good. I say that group endeavors are good too. I propose that new physical sports be devised which allow a range of different modes of participation such that each team member can contribute to the team. Because there must be an invention here is my sport: Move Stuff. A motely assembly of stuff is in two piles. Maybe at end zones of a field. The team must move the stuff to the other end of the field. Some stuff can be thrown. Some can be carried. Some might be rolled or dragged, maybe by multiple individuals. There is heavy and light stuff. There are pingpong balls. There are dumbells. There is big awkward stuff like nets requiring multiple people. There are barrels and big balls. Whichever team clears its side out first wins.
The stuff for a team is color coded. Maybe there could be an aspect where the opposing team can bring some items back up their side of the field and push them back into the start zone of the opposing team. This would allow more traditional competition for those inclined - you would look across and see the reds rolling your blue barrel back up their side of the field.
Teams would approach the task anarchically. There would always be new stuff in the pile in addition to old stuff from last time. Some kids might just run like mad back and forth with stuff. Some kids would be in groups to move heavy stuff, or form a bucket brigade to pass them along. Some would work in opposition to the other team. Each contributes according to ability and inclination.
Don't require Team Sports
http://www.slate.co..._editors_picks=true
Author wounded by gym. [bungston, May 10 2013]
White americans are demotivated by appeals to the common good.
http://www.npr.org/...-common-good-is-bad
"Taken together, our studies show that, in fact, interdependent behavior can be a barrier to motivation for European-Americans, and that this can have important consequences in terms of how they support social issues." [bungston, May 10 2013]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
// Teams would approach the task anarchically. // |
|
| |
'Moving Objects From Here to There' sounds like an
awesome team sport for kids, and if it doesn't exist by the
time my son is old enough to play I'm going to organize it
right here in my little town, where people will try anything
because we thrive largely on winter tourism and thus are
bored clean out of our minds seven months out of the year. |
|
| |
As with any developing sport, tactics and strategy will
evolve and it will become just another team vs. team
coordinated effort. Even with a constant rotation of
different 'objective items' the sharper-minded kids will
spot patterns and start grouping items by different rude
criteria, i.e. size, shape, ease of handling, etc. and the
dull-minded followers will be equivically ordered into
groups based on physical or mental attributes: big strong
kids will move the heavy stuff, small quick kids will move
the light stuff, clever kids will sort and stack the items,
and charismatic kids will direct the operation, calling the
plays if you will. |
|
| |
There's a reason that team sports are so ubiquitous:
Humans are pack-oriented predators. We're not solitary
hunters like a panther or a shark; we evolved to hunt in
groups of really clever, devious bastards who watch things
and spot patterns and devise tactics and already have you
dressed and butchered before they even attack you, like
wolves and lions. So it's only natural that we tend to gang
up on each other when at play. |
|
| |
Bun anyway. I love the idea. |
|
| |
I probably used "anarchy" incorrectly. What I
meant is that the team would approach the task
in an ad hoc manner. What you say about leaders
et is no doubt true. But in a school setting
participants could opt not to listen to any self-
anointed leader but still help the team as they
saw fit. |
|
| |
There would need to be a role governing the
opposition bringing back objects. Probably red
members should not be allowed to enter the red
destination zone - they just throw the objecin
there. Blue can go in and get red stuff and bring
it back on the blue side of the field. Blue cannot
enter the red destination zone - they throw the
stuff in there. Each team should move in
opposite directions - so on a trip for a red across
the field he would need to decide whether to
bring a red thing to the destination or a blue thing
back but not both. You always return empty
handed. |
|
| |
If red things are all out of origin zone and all in
destination zone, with none in red hands
traversing red side, red wins. If blue is mucking
about with red things on their side but does not
have them back to origin yet, they do not count. |
|
| |