A UNIVERSITY ELITIST AND "PHYSICAL RELATIVISM"...
Friday night I heard the dumbest comment I have ever heard from some professor at Case Western University who was discussing the steroid controversy with a replacement host. I was so upset when I heard this that I failed to write down either the professors name or the hosts name. The professor was defending the use of steroids in principle as follows (I paraphrase):
- Take the superior athletes who have physical advantages due to genetic makeup, they do nothing to develop this superiority. Therefore, someone who doesn't have these advantages, is well within his rights to take steroids so he doesn't have to do anything to develop better skills.
I almost couldn't believe what I heard! Physical Relativism! You work hard to become a great hitter like Babe Ruth and your genes don't quite allow you to achieve that goal, just stuff some steroids into your body. It's OK - the Babe just had a few more good genes than you and that isn't fair because he didn't have to work for them!
We had better all note a pattern from these university elitists: I talked to my grandaughter last night and asked her how her grades were. Her answer: "We don't get grades!" This is the same thought process: do anything to make all equal since someone being better hurts someone elses feeling. "Make all equal" is the operative phrase and we had better start recognizing the elitists efforts throughout our society.
WORD FOR THE DAY: agitprop
No HINT for this one. Look it up!
posted by Jim | 10:21 AM
5 Comments:
I think this post raises a couple interesting questions.
1. In baseball, mounds of statistics and measurements are kept on all aspects of the game and players, so it's relatively easy to see who the best players are. The best players tend to be the most well-paid, and therefore there's plenty of motivation to find ways (legal and illegal) to improve one's performance.
Also unfortunately I think the whole steroid issue will not go away; in the future they may come up with performance enhancers that are completely undetectable and safe...
2. I share your concern about schools not giving grades. Only by measuring skills and getting assessments of one's learning can you get a sense of whether you are making progress or stagnating. Not that I think every activity in school needs to be mapped to a bell curve, but there needs to be effective feedback.
1. I'm less interested in the steroid issue than how a representative of academia could make such a stupid statement!
2. The bell curve is the most effective feedback: tells you where you are in that "world" and what you need to do to improve and cannot be manipulated (assuming grading is correct!).
I believe other "feedbacks" can be (and are in many cases) manipulated for "political correctness", or whatever!!
I figure there are too many stupid statements made for me to get too upset about any single one! (Even I make stupid statements sometimes).
But I am interested in ideas. The steroid & equality issue made me think of something perhaps similar: what about the use of glasses or contact lenses in sports? It's a correction that seems to equalize for a genetic deficiency in eyesight. But it seems like we are generally OK with attempts to equalize opportunity; it's the attempts to equalize outcomes that generally strike us as wrong or misguided.
I only get upset when a self-appointed expert makes stupid statements about his area of expertise.
If there was an eye competition (maybe who can read the eye chart best) I think we would ban glasses. We would then be able to tell who has the best eyes. We may no longer be able to tell in baseball whose body allows him to hit the best!
I agree with your last sentence. For instance, in track and field a hurdler is allowed to wear glasses so he doesn't break his neck running into a hurdle (opportunity). It does not effect his bodies ability to run and go over hurdles in a coordinated manner (outcome).
Seems to me we allow "aid" to the secondary functions surrounding a competition, but draw the line on "aid" for the primary functions with which we are competing. Make any sense?
Yes, I think your distinction between the secondary aspects and the primary focus of an activity helps clarify where aid/equalizers may be acceptable.
My comment about bell curves was in part that a bell curve on individual performance may not always be the best way to measure things. For instance, it may not necessarily lead to the best measure of collective (team) performance. A team of 'all-stars' could be beaten by a highly coordinated team with lesser individual talents. The tricks of how you get a team to gel are hard to quantify.
Post a Comment
<< Home