Calling all psych majors/experts/non-novices[?]

I'm not saying there isn't anything turthful in the website, but it looks like its just a bunch of slick buzzwords and edu-speak. Initially it reads similar to the stuff we have to put up with in staff meetings; you know, "We are going to shift the paradigm here to be more holistically oriented to educate the whole learner."

So I looked some stuff up, and found this websitehttp://www.personalstrengths.us/index.php/en/sdi/about-sdi-an-overview which has a lot of terms I'm gonna list on my next job application. It appears to deal with how people deal with others, and how you can use that knowledge to put them in the best positions for success.
Still, I'm gonna call B$ because those two terms (1-Strength Deployment Inventory, and Relationship Awareness Theory) are both registered trademarks. And I get the feeling this is more about making money then building success.

or this one!

bullshitbingo.net/cards/buzzword/

THat sounds like a great speaking topic gone terribly awry.

I did, unfortunately it didn't really say sh!t about anything other than "I yelled at him and he got worse, so then I didn't yell at him and he got better!" Which is about as common sense as it goes.

Talked it over with a friend who has a masters in sports psych and he said its nothing revolutionary as a concept, although he said the application may be different than others.

Most of us know the Meyers Briggs 4 trait personality type, I guess this one just uses different metrics to get there, so it seems anyway.

Sent from my DROID2 using ProBoards

Amen, Reverend DCOHIO!!


"New Ohio Science Model Curriculum, mumble mumble, blah!"

Thank God I can retire before Implementaition is required!!

I've looked into meditation, hypnosis, brain washing, and voodoo. Nothing's worked yet.

I was exposed to this type of research in my last year of education classes in college.... We took all kinds of batteries of tests that showed what motivated us, what kind of management styles we were best influenced by, etc...

IMO, it's just another way this country is straying into the realm of pussification. Figure out how to motivate people with hurting their precious little feelings. This was developed for business managers, I guess losing your job isn't enough motivation to do your d-mn work.

We all state that "kids want to know that you care before they want to know what you know". This type of "psychological research" is just another way to make this concept more difficult than it needs to be while making some cash off of it.

The college professor that worked with this stuff made high-end six figures a year going around the country putting people on her white couch and telling managers how very special their underlings are and how they need to feed into the specific "motivation mind-set" to get peak production. And, then telling the underlings that their lack of motivation was due to a disparity between their motivation style and how their boss treated them.

Now, anyone that has seen me coach understands that I am a positive coach who does everything I can to motivate my players. BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal which is winning.

Nice rant. Any qualifications to be so dismissive of a whole branch of science?

What if you're wrong? What if there are things that you seem to think are 100% fact that actually serve to screw somebody up for years and years?

What if you have no way of knowing you were screwing people up until 10 years after the fact?

Maybe this particular theory/method is a bunch of BS. Maybe it isn't. But it might be a bit over-stated to say that every, any, and all sport psych is BS, don't you think?


Personally, I actually love your statement;

"BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal..."

Hmm...sounds a lot like that pu$$y concept of intrinsic motivation (as opposed to the opposite you so fondly refer to with respect to keeping your job).

Which is it? Motivation should come from within, or from a taskmaster? Which works better? When? Always?

Not such a simple thing to answer...maybe somebody ought to create a science that studies such things...

You're making some pretty broad assumptions here, coach.

You are assuming I am a 'yeller'; I am not. You are assuming that I take a dictator approach to coaching, which I do not. You are assuming that I don't have a strong background in sports psychology, which I do. You are assuming that I don't know the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they manifest themselves in a player's actions. No where did I state that I think Sports Psychology is BS. The specific literature that is being discussed is very different from sports psychology.

But, to be more SPECIFIC, I have no use for this "branch of science" BECAUSE it doesn't have a strong enough emphasis on fostering intrinsic motivation. They have actually developed strategies for dealing with extrinsically motivated people which IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T WANT. They determine a person's "motivation type" and then use various strategies to develop a relationship get more productivity out of them. What they should be doing is beating it out of them the way we do as football coaches.

This "branch of science" presses home the notion that we can still all be INDIVIDUALS with EXTRINSIC INDIVIDUAL motivations on a TEAM.

On a football team, the only things that matters to me is that those kids want to work hard for their teammates and for the common good. I treat my kids well and drive home internal motivation and there's no way in hell I would address anything extrinsic. Other than to tell them to start playing with the team or go home.

I hate this research because it was initially introduced into the American workforce. People wanted more productivity out of their employees so psychologists came out and stated that we needed to embrace the individuality and individual motivations to do so. People need to come up with their own motivations for getting it through their workday. But, there should always be one primary push from society; THERE'S A JOB TO DO, DO IT.

I s'pose I would need to get into more detail with respect to how the coaching staffs are using this particular program. They may be adjusting it to remove some of that emphasis on extrinsic motivation which is what I really wanted to see out of this program.

The professor forced us to take this battery of tests that she explained was her "gift to us" as she and her cohorts would charge thousands of dollars for. It took me an hour to finish and it didn't tell me anything about myself that I didn't already know. But, some of the things that were highlighted in these tests are personality traits that have the potential to make me a bad employee.

An employer/manager looking at my test should never say, "What a dynamic individual, we need to work with his particular brand of personality to make us a better company".

They should say, "He'd better tone that sh-t down or his a-- is going to be fired."

There are things that make us unique; they help define us. BUT, we d-mn sure better understand that those individual traits need to be tempered.

And, as such, I really don't want the ideology behind this research to spill into a football program. Yes, I respect and care about all of my players as individuals. But, that individuality had better work towards the greater good on the field when we're talking about football.

Aww Josie, you live in Florida. No fair to come on here all happy and Zen. There's a winter storm warning going on up here. You're probably sitting around the pool nursing a sore martini elbow.

CoachCB and I are all good. Don't think we learned that fear of confrontation thing the young'ns have inserted in their collective brain these days. No biggy.

Herb Brooks who was the head coach of the 1980 gold medal US hockey team at the 1980 olympics used psychological profiles when picking his team.

While Brooks' methods are good, he had a known pool to draw from, and he wasn't competing with anyone for players.