 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
I also pointed to surveys that said high school kids consider athletes role models or did you miss that? |
As PTID stated, this is merely a reflection of the pop cultural understanding of the term 'role model'. What does it actually mean? What do you think the kids mean when they nominate a sports star or actor as a role model? Does it mean "I aspire to be like that person in all of their facets?", or simply "I aspire to be like that person in certain key facets?".
You seem to be put out by the continual references here to young children. That's fine, but don't forget that this is the framework in which the topic is usually discussed. Why? Because "He's a bad influence on the teenagers or 20-somethings" is a far less compelling scare tactic than "He's a bad influence on the little children".
As I might have mentioned earlier, consider the movie classification system. Films with a lot of violence and sex are rated MA or R, which mean restricted to 15+ and 18+ respectively. Why do we have these classifications? Because there's a general understanding that, up until a certain age, children are more easily influenced and not sufficiently cognitively developed to cope with this stuff. By the time we reach 15 and then 18, we're permitted to watch whatever we like (within boundaries). Cognitively speaking, we're considered resilient enough and rational enough to be able to cope with these things.
That's why the role model argument doesn't even approach any semblance of credibility unless you're talking about minors (and particularly 10 year old kids). We're focusing on younger children because that's where the point of contention lies; even Neil Mitchell would blanch at making footballers behave lest 19 year-olds be led astray.
The battle here, then, is over just how much AFL players negatively affect the morals and decisionmaking of young kids. The conclusive, resounding answer appears to be 9/10ths of not a frigging lot.
| stui magpie wrote: | But just because they don't directly copy the bad behaviour doesn't mean it hasn't had an influence on their thinking and their future behaviour. The message retained here among all the reinforced messages not to drink, to behave etc, is that someone CAN earn shitpiles of money playing sport, be idolised by millions of people and STILL get on the piss.
Same as Ben Cousins. Lots of people will have admired him for the way he played the game, his ability to push himself to exhaustion and keep going. Now it turns out he was doing this for years while abusing coke and ice.
Again, kids aren't going to run out and hop on the speed to be like Ben Cousins, but depending on their age and associations, they will have been constantly reinforced by parents etc that drugs are bad, kill you, ruin your life etc. Here is classic reinforcement that contradicts all those teachings. This bloke could do drugs and win a premiership and a brownlow.
Is that going to "Cause" timmy to take Ice? highly unlikely. Is it giving him the thought that maybe not all the stuff people told him is true and maybe drugs aren't that bad?
If the AFL didn't come down hard on this behaviour, what else does that add to the message? |
If so, the fault clearly lies with parents and authority figures for telling scare stories about drugs when clearly not all illegal drugs ruin your life or stop you from achieving success in certain fields. Ben Cousins taking drugs doesn't change that one jot; how long is it going to take before the kids realise all their favourite rock stars do coke and pills? Clearly, you're attacking this problem from the wrong end: Cousins only causes a contradiction if authority figures fudge the truth to begin with. It would be far more productive for them to point to him and say: "Yes, he was still able to perform at his peak and win a Brownlow and be rich and popular while taking drugs, but there's a dark side to all of that; look at the mess his private life became or look at his inability to regulate his own consumption". But god forbid parents should tell children the truth!
What message does it send if the AFL doesn't come down hard on Ben Cousins and people like him? It sends the message that they're a sporting organisation; that managing the private morality of AFL players is not their remit. If Cousins breaks the law, the law will deal with him; if he doesn't break the law but %@#$s up his private life, he will suffer the consequences of that. Why isn't that sufficient?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | If so, the fault clearly lies with parents and authority figures for telling scare stories about drugs when clearly not all illegal drugs ruin your life or stop you from achieving success in certain fields. |
The scary part about this statement is that you honestly believe it, don't you David.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OEP, I've smoked joints on about 10-15 occasions. Many people in public office and other areas have too. Marijuana has not ruined my life, and it has not ruined theirs either.
To claim that all illegal drugs will ruin your life is not just factually incorrect, it's counterproductive. The worst thing you can do as an authority figure is lose credibility in the eyes of your charges; and guess what happens when a 16 year old realises that a joint or an ecstasy tablet didn't kill them? They might just conclude that all warnings against drug use were similarly specious, and ignore quite relevant warnings about more dangerous drugs. It'd be far better for people to be honest and upfront about these things, and devote more time to warning against drugs that actually do ruin lives.
(And before you ask, AFL players aren't authority figures!  )
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^You have no mechanism of action, no data and no argument. All you have is a desire to cling to naive hand-me-down ideas. No big deal--that hardly makes you unusual. |
Mechanism for action ........lol
I miss pretentious academia.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | OEP, I've smoked joints on about 10-15 occasions. Many people in public office and other areas have too. Marijuana has not ruined my life, and it has not ruined theirs either.
To claim that all illegal drugs will ruin your life is not just factually incorrect, it's counterproductive. The worst thing you can do as an authority figure is lose credibility in the eyes of your charges; and guess what happens when a 16 year old realises that a joint or an ecstasy tablet didn't kill them? They might just conclude that all warnings against drug use were similarly specious, and ignore quite relevant warnings about more dangerous drugs. It'd be far better for people to be honest and upfront about these things, and devote more time to warning against drugs that actually do ruin lives.
(And before you ask, AFL players aren't authority figures! ) |
Oh horse shit David.
Your argument sounds good but it just a bunch of words propped up by hot air.
I've argued with you about various law related subjects before, including I believe drugs, and if there's one thing I've learnt its that it's a waste of valuable time and energy. Your set in your views, as am I, and nothing I say will change that....so in the spirit of that I'm not going to try now.
(And just so you know I don't believe AFL players are authority figures either  )
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not to be a smartarse, but aren't all arguments just a bunch of words?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | If so, the fault clearly lies with parents and authority figures for telling scare stories about drugs when clearly not all illegal drugs ruin your life or stop you from achieving success in certain fields. |
The scary part about this statement is that you honestly believe it, don't you David. |
I know quite a few top lawyers, MBA's top level bureaucrats, doctors, a judge indeed all manner of people who use "illicit drugs" regularly if not on weekends. Pure heroin used correctly & safely has no real deleterious effects. I know a guy in his mid 60's who has smoked marijuana daily since the late 70's. He's got a MBA, recently retired, worked in high pressure jobs as a senior manager, raise three healthy well adjusted children, is a handyman & motor mechanic par excellence, is IT savvy & goes camping often - had no overt ill effects on him. Smoking per se probably has.
It's a separate issue but most top cops want illicit drugs legalised (they say this when they retire) & controlled. I support this view with massive education programmes against it's use.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Not to be a smartarse, but aren't all arguments just a bunch of words? |
No, that's just what you intemellectual edumakated types claim to be the case; what, with your words trickily arranged into sentences and paragraphs! We here in the Real World (TM) know that in the game of life a bunch of sour grapes trumps a bunch of so-called "words" every time!
Oh, and while you're at it, Peabody, click on this and become a real man like me!
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hey! I can't click on that!
What sort of scam are you running here? |
|
|
|
|
Nash Rising
Joined: 27 Nov 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | If so, the fault clearly lies with parents and authority figures for telling scare stories about drugs when clearly not all illegal drugs ruin your life or stop you from achieving success in certain fields. |
The scary part about this statement is that you honestly believe it, don't you David. |
I know quite a few top lawyers, MBA's top level bureaucrats, doctors, a judge indeed all manner of people who use "illicit drugs" regularly if not on weekends. Pure heroin used correctly & safely has no real deleterious effects. I know a guy in his mid 60's who has smoked marijuana daily since the late 70's. He's got a MBA, recently retired, worked in high pressure jobs as a senior manager, raise three healthy well adjusted children, is a handyman & motor mechanic par excellence, is IT savvy & goes camping often - had no overt ill effects on him. Smoking per se probably has.
It's a separate issue but most top cops want illicit drugs legalised (they say this when they retire) & controlled. I support this view with massive education programmes against it's use. |
You should visit the morgue occassionally |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
The gap in the level of influence of the negative role model behaviour is so easily explained that I would be embarrassed for you if you needed me to explain it to you. It is what "justifies" the researchers point but on no account does it support the notion that athletes are not role models. |
Explain to me the gap in the level of influence of the negative role model behavior.
I will not be embarassed. |
Ok, it's simple.
Firstly it's because of the level of detachedness of the role model. As has been said by you and others, the strongest role models are people close to the subject. Friends family and mentors etc. Footballers, actors etc can certainly be role models but do not have the same level of influence as people who are actually close to the subject.
Secondly it's about comparative volume of positive vs negative messages. The person chose the sport star as a role model because of their good attributes which are constantly reinforced and, you would hope these positive attributes are also being consistently modelled and portrayed by their other, closer, role models. This makes 1 incident of bad behaviour an aberration not a pattern to be followed. Just like a normally sober responsible father who gets tanked one Christmas and makes a douche of himself is hardly going to inspire his son to be a binge drinker by a single instance of out of character behaviour.
Thirdly, and this is the point that so many seem to be sulking about, is that there are quick and negative consequences associated with the behaviour. There is no opportunity for a player to consistently re-offend and have that behaviour condoned or applauded, so no reinforcement in the mind of the person looking up to them that this behaviour is ok to mimic.
Swan shows up to training after having a few drinks and gets suspended. Fevola gets sacked (eventually), Conners the Ninthmond player gets sacked. Cousins gets de-registered. The sporting organisations (and media) make a massive contribution by swiftly applying negative consequences to the inappropriate behaviour, all of which would be reinforced by the other role models closer to home.
So when you put those three things together there is clearly little opportunity for a sports star to have a negative impact.
One of those studies you referred to early about different groups of young people and their drinking habits, drew the conclusion that the behaviour of the footballers appeared to have little impact on the drinking habits of the youngsters and therefore that the players as role models had little influence. You could take that same data set and draw the conclusion that the sporting organisation is doing an excellent job at minimising the impact of negative behaviour by applying swift and harsh penalties when it occurs.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's a strange argument, Stui. Essentially, you appear to be arguing that the main reason sportspersons' loutish off-field behaviour doesn't cause mass corruption of young people is that their misdemeanours are swiftly punished by their employers.
Surely we have no need to indulge in such abstract reasoning. We already have a similar category of 'role model' to consider in this context: rock stars. Like sportspeople, they are commonly cited as 'role models', have a similarly idealised persona and occasionally get up to bad behaviour. What's the difference? Musicians have no sub-judicial authority penalising them for their shenanigans; apart from the law of the land, nobody really gets to tell them what to do. Under your logic, therefore, kids who list musicians as opposed to sportspeople as their 'role models' must, on average, turn out far worse. More to the point, most of those kids must be at least somewhat corrupted by the knowledge that you can take as many drugs as you like and still be the lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Is that what you believe? Is this a reasonable conclusion to make?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^
That wasn't my main reason, it's a combination of the 3 but I knew you'd pick on the one that you disagree with the most. 
With Rock Stars, your logic is flawed because you point only at the lack of punishment and don't focus on the reporting of the "shenanigans".
Record labels and music promotors have a vested interest in not letting too much information get out publicly about musicians drug use. If it's not reported then little billy doesn't know about it and therefore has no negative trend to follow.
So to answer your question, no that is not a reasonable conclusion to make.
However, I would be very interested in a comparison of the number of drug users who's role models were musicians as opposed to Sports Stars. I think you'd find more in the former camp.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
Ok, it's simple.
Firstly it's because of the level of detachedness of the role model. As has been said by you and others, the strongest role models are people close to the subject. Friends family and mentors etc. Footballers, actors etc can certainly be role models but do not have the same level of influence as people who are actually close to the subject.
Secondly it's about comparative volume of positive vs negative messages. The person chose the sport star as a role model because of their good attributes which are constantly reinforced and, you would hope these positive attributes are also being consistently modelled and portrayed by their other, closer, role models. This makes 1 incident of bad behaviour an aberration not a pattern to be followed. Just like a normally sober responsible father who gets tanked one Christmas and makes a douche of himself is hardly going to inspire his son to be a binge drinker by a single instance of out of character behaviour.
Thirdly, and this is the point that so many seem to be sulking about, is that there are quick and negative consequences associated with the behaviour. There is no opportunity for a player to consistently re-offend and have that behaviour condoned or applauded, so no reinforcement in the mind of the person looking up to them that this behaviour is ok to mimic.
Swan shows up to training after having a few drinks and gets suspended. Fevola gets sacked (eventually), Conners the Ninthmond player gets sacked. Cousins gets de-registered. The sporting organisations (and media) make a massive contribution by swiftly applying negative consequences to the inappropriate behaviour, all of which would be reinforced by the other role models closer to home.
So when you put those three things together there is clearly little opportunity for a sports star to have a negative impact.
One of those studies you referred to early about different groups of young people and their drinking habits, drew the conclusion that the behaviour of the footballers appeared to have little impact on the drinking habits of the youngsters and therefore that the players as role models had little influence. You could take that same data set and draw the conclusion that the sporting organisation is doing an excellent job at minimising the impact of negative behaviour by applying swift and harsh penalties when it occurs. |
So what you are saying is that as a result of
One Having good role models such as parents etc
Two Lots of good role models providing lots of positive messages
Three Sports stars being punished when they stuff up
footballers are not negative role models.
Step three is more complicated (as you state)
It is a bit chicken and the egg Which came first?
Footballers don't have a negative impact because they are punished when stuffing up. The reason to punish footballers is because they are role models and by stopping this behavior negative impacts don't occur.
Footballers are positive role models that could become negative role models except that even though they are positive role models the danger that they could become a negative role model means they must be treated as a negative role model in order the maintain their influence as a positive role model.
A simpler system could be that the media don't report this behavior children therefore are not exposed to negative messages that can affect their behavior.
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: |
A simpler system could be that the media don't report this behavior children therefore are not exposed to negative messages that can affect their behavior. |
That would also work. If people weren't aware of the negative behaviour in the first place, there is no opportunity to mimic it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
