See ball – hit ball
In certain sports where the
players are endeavouring to hit a ball or a target, there is a very general
coaching instruction to watch the ball
or watch the target. The coach may
specify this further by changing the word watch to focus, however there can
be no doubt as to what the player is being expected to do. It is an instruction
I myself have repeated countless times to countless players.
And yet here, in the minds of
all players from beginners to experts, there runs a heuristic to ease the cognitive load. It is part of
what “gets in the way” of performance for all players.
They start out by watching the ball or the target, and they may be expert
enough at giving it their full attention.
However, the primary burning question is “For how long?”
However, the primary burning question is “For how long?”
The answer I got once from a very perceptive player aged just eleven was,
“For as long as I could tell what the ball was doing.”
It made total sense to her to do it that way every time. Digging a little deeper revealed that she gathered enough information to enable her to decide which way (direction) to play the ball and how to hit it.
“For as long as I could tell what the ball was doing.”
It made total sense to her to do it that way every time. Digging a little deeper revealed that she gathered enough information to enable her to decide which way (direction) to play the ball and how to hit it.
However, the crux of
her answer was this:
She watched it only for as
long as she thought she needed to.
And when she missed the ball,
or mis-hit it, it was her thinking
that was at fault, not her watching. To put it another way - it was her decision when to ease the cognitive
load on watching and switch it elsewhere (probably to initiating and
executing the shot) that was at fault. She, like so many of us, was running a
heuristic, a little macro routine, which turned watching the ball into an educated guess. Her decision to go
into guess-mode was what, for her,
lowered the drawbridge from the Castle of Cognition to the wide open intuitive
spaces beyond the moat.
My job, as her coach, then
became one of highlighting what was happening so she could change her map and
navigate the entire routine to achieve a more productive outcome – a cleaner
hit.
One time, I was explaining
this to a fellow coach, who was well schooled in the more ‘conventional’
approach.
“So, Pete - isn’t this nothing more than getting her to change her thinking?” he asked.
“So, Pete - isn’t this nothing more than getting her to change her thinking?” he asked.
“To a certain degree you could say that, but your language shows that your
own thinking is taking you in the wrong direction,” was my reply. He
appeared momentarily confused, but continued:
“So what about those coaches who point
towards positive thinking as a means
to help instil confidence, for instance? Isn’t that, too, all about changing our
thinking?”
(He’s a great believer in the argument that for as long as we just focus on the positive then all will be well.)
(He’s a great believer in the argument that for as long as we just focus on the positive then all will be well.)
“What I would say is this,” I said. “Every player watches the ball. Whether it
is the eleven year old student player or the very best player in the world,
they are both only ever going
to watch the ball for as long as they think they need to. They will do that
every time they hit the ball, or play a shot.
So I’m definitely not going to be changing their thinking in that area.”
So I’m definitely not going to be changing their thinking in that area.”
“Yes, but ...”
“Look, it is all about the type of Language conveying the data, the
information, the meaning. Positive thinking is all about filtering the Verbal
Language content of the thoughts, conveyed via slow and ponderous
cognitive processing. Watching the ball is a thought process about gathering
data in Sensory Language – running much faster at an intuitive level.
These are both types of “thinking” – but there is no comparison after that.”
“Ah, I see.”
“So in terms of ball watching, I don’t need to get my eleven year old student
to change her intuitive thinking. We can certainly improve the quality of her sensory acuity, of course. However,
that has nothing to do with changing her thinking! She needs to maintain that
particular thought process and Understand that in order hit the
ball better, she needs to watch for longer. No more – no less! This will
inhibit the firing of this particular Heuristic for much longer AND mitigate
the downside effects this heuristic causes – i.e. Forcing her into guessing what the ball is doing.
Likewise, I don’t need to
coach the best player in the world about watching the ball because he Understands
that when he misses the ball or mis-hits the ball it is because he hasn’t watched
it for long enough. That’s part of the territory that comes with being
the best in the world.”
“So what if the ball takes a dodgy bounce, or is blown
by the wind? I’ve seen players go and look at the pitch or ground, or complain
about the weather conditions. What about that?”
“They may look at the pitch to satisfy their curiosity as to what made them
miss, or grumble about the wind - however, the pitch and the conditions are the
same for all players.
So what kind of processing is
going on in each of their Minds to make the difference? Looking at the pitch is
visual sensory data gathering, whereas a whole load of slow and ponderous
cognitive verbalising goes into the activity known as grumbling.”
Aside from the secondary
major process of perfecting the physical form
of playing the shots, hitting the ball – how they deal with the primary major
process is what marks out the novices from the experts; and it is not the
watching per se, but the thinking
behind it.
- Novices and experts always run the default heuristic of educated guesswork once they think they can tell what the ball is doing.
- The experts have navigated enough hitting of balls to realise that they need to watch for longer, and that delays the running of the heuristic.
In terms of “brain-power”,
the experts allocate more band-width to their watching process. They don’t ease the cognitive load on the primary
major process, they ease, or even shut down on the other processes. They manage their mental resources better,
in comparison to a novice. Even the experts though, can still fall into that
mental trap of thinking they know
and in those moments they become novices once more - because they are relying
upon a Thought and not an Understanding.
Remember R D Laing’s quote:
“If I don’t know I don’t know, I think I know.
If I don’t know I know, I think I don’t know.”
“If I don’t know I don’t know, I think I know.
If I don’t know I know, I think I don’t know.”
Task Manager
If you look in the background
at what is going on with your computer you’ll locate the Task Manager. It is like
a report of what processes are running, and how much processing power is
allocated to each task.
There are often quite a lot of tasks - ranging from how
the information is put on the screen so you can see it, to where that
information is drawn from, and so on.
Our computer has a set amount of RAM resources available to run tasks at a
particular optimal processor speed. If we are running a lot of screens and some
‘meaty’ tasks then the Task Manager
has a lot more on his plate in terms of how he is allocating resources through
time. Some of the computer’s performance will degrade if it approaches the
limit of its resources. It will run much more slowly.
Eventually we’ll get fed up
with this downturn in performance and we’ll go and upgrade our computer to one
with more resources. When we upgrade with more RAM and a higher processor
speed, then the Task Manager can cope
with a lot more – ergo there is now
no degradation of performance. Things run much better – and we are happy!
Our upgraded computer can
handle its cognitive load with ease.
Then, of course, we’ll start getting it to do more for us by running more
sophisticated processes that increase the cognitive load ... and so the whole
cycle goes on.
However, that’s how it works
in computer terms – so what about US and our amazing human brain, for we are a
million miles away from being a computer! For this I need to go back to my eleven
year old player.
When she Understands that she needs to watch for longer, her Task Manager will change the resource
allocation and she’ll get better at her watching – and her playing.
We call this watching for longer a part of “paying better attention”, or “better focus”, or “better concentration.”
We call this watching for longer a part of “paying better attention”, or “better focus”, or “better concentration.”
We can “road-test” her being better at watching by adding to
her Tasks and seeing what happens. The best way to do this is to throw in some
distraction.
If she is “put off” by the distraction then her Task Manager has allocated some resources to paying attention to the distraction and gathering information about it. This has moved some of the resources originally allocated to watching the ball over to the distraction – and the result is degradation of outcome quality.
If she is “put off” by the distraction then her Task Manager has allocated some resources to paying attention to the distraction and gathering information about it. This has moved some of the resources originally allocated to watching the ball over to the distraction – and the result is degradation of outcome quality.
In terms of see ball – hit ball she
won’t be able to see ball as well so she won’t be able to hit ball as well, if
at all.
Moving on, when she gets good at dealing with distractions, then
her depth and longevity of concentration will go up dramatically. And when she
gets really good at dealing with the biggest distraction of all – herself –
then she’ll achieve a good level of self-mastery. She will be more expert than
novice!
Mind you, she will still be
vulnerable even then, because - for all of us - our attention ebbs and flows,
our level of awareness fluctuates over time and through every moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment