thing is a child is more intelligent and want other thing than dog. even you always pet his shoulder ´he does something you want he will find this out and doesnt bother about it unless he s afraid of you.
Suffice it to say that China has more "great" players compared to Canada. Does this satisfy the conclusion that military training is more effective than the democratic system? Let us not forget the other factors. For example, (1) the advantage of population to choose the best players from (less populated countries have less players/reserves); (2) the culture (Olympic champions in China are considered heroes; thus, this drives children to dream of becoming one); (3) salary (in our country, most athletes are minimum wagers); (4) government support; etc. IMO, perfect balance in training should be achieved. A reward/reinforcement should be given, but too much of it would spoil the trainee. Discipline should be enforced, but too much tightness could constrict or dishearten the player. I think the military system has its pros and cons, just the same as the democratic system, as long as it does not destroy the trainees love for this sport. After all, badminton is not about the medal, the trophy, the glory, etc. It's all about the passion.
Yes, it's also true, however there are a lot of factors to consider for an athlete to excel, not just the conditioning. In China, people have lesser rights, so you have to comply with the rules or else you'll be considered an outcast in the society, it's either you play or you get nothing. So they likely would not have any option better than to escape or get punished. If I were that kid and I was to be put to the chinese system I would rather quit. Chinese players excel because they have found the rewards or proper reinforcements for them to keep playing, keep training, and eventually excel in the sport. There's no point in continuing something if you dont have a reason to do it, simple as that, so even if you are under a what you call democratic system of coaching, or chinese system, you will have to find a motivation for you to keep playing. Its operant conditioning by the way, it's giving rewards or reinforcements to good responses that are elicited, for some people however you don't need to give the rewards or reinforcements they need because they have found it in themselves, like playing badminton because you want to get physical fit for some reason, or for you to be able to study college. These are the once called self-motivated people.
Well, if a student is afraid of the coach the he'll most likely quit right? And all that potential he has will be wasted.
You are still referencing your argument in the democratic framework. If the kid quit, his/her parents will push him/her back to training because professional sport career is alot more rewarding than being a peasant, or a factory worker at best. If that kid know he is there because he can be trained for free to become a star player, why would he quit? If the training is so tough, how about his alternative of slaving away in the factory 10 hrs day, 5-6 days/week. Which career path has the better reward to work ratio? If that kid don't have the smart and drive to know this opportunity, the coach likley boot him out anyway.
Yes, that answers the wuestion, the kid will work for the reward if he knows what the rewards are. No matter what kind of training an athlete gets, either military or chinese style or whatever, all human beings function using a reward / reinforcement procedure.
i think that is too general of a statement. It is common sense that people do thing for a reason, it is not ancient secret or scientific fact. I mean it is too general because there are exceptions. I have to use an off topic example, if a serial killer search and kill innocent victims because he/she was hearing voices in his head, what reward or motive that drive him/her to do this out of norm activity/function?
It is doubtful that simple economic or purely logical reasons are the explanation why people in either the "democratic" or "military" systems succeed. Cold logic is not enough to succeed. In a rigid system, the majority of people who stick it out will be those whose personalities can take pointless repetition and who find it sufficient incentive to please a slave-driving coach. The Chinese system surely has plenty of such automatons. But there has to be something special about those who rise to the very top. Utter self-confidence somehow mixed with the prerequisite servility to the coach/system. Weird. Think Lin Dan. For a democratic nation, the people who succeed are those very self-motivated types that can never be happy with themselves; those who, despite every societal pressure luring them to easy pleasures, force themselves to perfection. Think Peter Rasmussen. What says the great sports med guru? Are these types the same animal born in different systems. Would they have both reached the top if they had been brought up in the others culture?
Yes it is too general but it's true, plain common sense, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out, how come you don't figure it out at first? Well, being insane is an organic condition, it is very different because obviously it is not normal. Have you heard of Saddists and masochists? they get the feeling of pleasure in hurting or being hurt, Psychiatrists can give you a scientific explanation to that, but a very simple explanation is they encounter pleasure in doint it, we really dont know why. but the fact that it gives pleasure to them is plain simple example the Humans finction on a reward/ reinforcement basis.
I would not say that all people with psychosis enjoy their acts. They are often acting on irresistible compulsions more out of fear, or because they are absolutely convinced it is the right course. I haven't met serial killers, but have dealt with enough psychosis to know that they are acting according to "reward/avoidance of punishement" just like the rest of us....just on their own level of reality. Not a light topic, let me tell you.
u didnt answer my example, this type of killer draw no pleasure nor financial reward. The voice told him/her to do it. How does this fit into the reward/reinforcement theory ?
I know this question is not addressed to me. Sorry for butting in. Perhaps to make the voice stop? Isn't that the reward/reinforcement? I'm no expert
well, then everything we do is based on reward and reinforcement: eating, breathing, walking. Q: why did the chicken cross the road A: because the reward/reinforcement to get to the other made it do it? no, u r not butting in. Anybody is welcome to contribute
so back to my original question, is fear of punishment and pain is a greater reward/reinforcement than money and fame, the typical motive of a pro athlete?
This is one good psychological question. A mystery, perhaps, in certain circumstances. However, i think it's explicable. Don't worry. Ask the expert. I'm of the opinion that the reward shouldn't always be in monetary form or normal pleasure that one could have. When they did what they'd want to do, it's a reward. And everyone may see it differently. Thus, i think this suit the rewarding theory. You'll work for what you'd want to. And please, don't say every pleasure is visible. Humans are too complex for that.
We eat, breathe, and walk ... to live. For me, that's the reward already. Again, I'm no expert. I'm still waiting for our in-house shrink's expert answer
Although this also covers the theory of reward/ reinforcement (behavioral theory) This leads me to another theory, simple law of nature, the strong shall live and the weak shall die, Charles Darwin emphasized this theory (he is the same scientist who said that human beings are products of millions of years of evolution from the family of chimps) that the drive to survive is the strongest motivator in any living being. Well if badminton is your bread and butter, that is, in the case of Lin Dan, or any other nations which have produced great players from poverty, they don't only play for fame, fortune or whatever, they play to live, because it serves as their only way out. When you are in that type of situation Im very sure you would rather play badminton than die of slavery or hunger, and no amount of punishment or slave-driving coach will stop you because it is your only way out, to feed yourself and your family. This is what makes these players so remarkable, sports goes beyond just being a game, its their life that is on the line everytime they step on the court. I dont know in the case of Peter Rasmussen, I don't know much of a background about him, but im pretty sure he has his own motivations/ reasons which reinforces him to strive for perfection in the sport. Being competitive is a part of human nature, that's why we engage in sports and other competitive activites, only that 20 million years ago we compete against dinosaurs and other beings for us to live. That covers 2 theories, the theory of reward and reinforcement, and the evolutionary/ survival theory by Charles Darwin.
Yes that is right, to live is enough reward, it covers another theory, the biological theory. Yes everything we do is reward/ reinforcement driven, these includes biological needs such as eating, breathing, walking and other activites which we do. It's our own body that tells us what we need for us to live.
