Some interesting things for me to reflect on coming out of replies to this thread...a few here
First, I didn’t actually say ‘do eco psych or get out’. I said ‘pick a damn theory and commit to it till it breaks or doesn’t’. I’m not sure that was clear though because boy did some people reflexively yell at me for being an eco psych cultist
Second, some fascinating misunderstandings of how science works. Committing to a theoretical approach, coming to grips with where it comes from, what it assumes, etc, is not dogmatism, it’s a critical part of science! (As is leaving and never returning to ideas that didn’t work)
Imagine if physics was still re-litigating whether phlogiston was a contender explanation. No one would ever get anything done.

Imagine if physicists panicked at every hard-to-explain-right-away result. What a mess it would be!!
Good science means embracing a solid theory (like relativity, or evolution, or eco psych, or hell, even info processing) and working the ever loving shit out of it till it breaks or you can safely face the reality of the evidence
A huge part of the problem for non eco coaches is that the science they rely on has gotten worse over the years. From the 50s to the 90s, scientists engaged with the implications of computationalism and representations. You couldn’t swing a concept without hitting philosophising
The 21st C has basically just shrugged and gone ‘let’s just crack on’. This would be ok except there remain major unsolved challenges and the field only did this because it stopped teaching its graduates theory details and focused on methods. The field’s cut off from its roots
Psychology is paying the price for this with a replication crisis. Rote application of methods with no good grounding in where those came from has been a bloody disaster for the field. (Not everyone, but the majority I think)
If you don’t understand where your methods come from, you can’t properly interrogate them when they fail, or innovate based on theory when you find a gap in what you can do. You’re just fucking around trying to find out
So. It’s important for coaches to understand that you can be rigorous and sceptical and open to being wrong AND STILL be firmly committed to applying one approach over the other. In fact, *it’s the only way you can*
Let’s see, what else.

Oh right. Lots of the usual ‘but eco psych can’t explain feelings/brains/memory’ type objections. The reply is both important and unsatisfying - we can’t do it *yet*. As Geoff Bingham repeatedly taught me, there’s a history here
Eco psych in coaching is about 15-20 years behind eco psych in science, in terms of what questions it has tackled. Eco psych also does things in a certain order; perception of the physical environment first, no jumping to brains etc till we get the job description right
This all means eco dynamics is (sensibly) still solving problems around perception and manipulation of the physical environment. It doesn’t say how to use verbal instruction, but not because it cannot in principle, because it cannot do the topic justice *yet*
‘We’re working on it’ is a frustrating answer (trust me, I’ve been annoying people with it for years). But unfortunately it’s the deal - the state of the art is good but still a LONG way to go
What we researchers need is a) all the gaps that you can see and want filled (so we try to answer relevant questions) and b) some patience as we try to rise to the challenge.
I am working on a project just now that, at its core, is about education of the ecological approach and, longer term, creating a place for these discussions to happen where they can actually spark the necessary work. Early days yet, so patience please, but I am working on it :)
This is why I have been throwing these threads out here. I do it to organise my thoughts, refine my understanding of these topics, learn more about the gaps people worry about, and so on. I try to be provocative rather than an ass, but I know my mileage varies there
Thanks to every coach that engages in good faith. For what it’s worth, I always listen and I reflect on everything that comes up. You are fuel for my attempts to do all this stuff properly, and I can’t do it without you :)
/end
Oh, actually, one more thing. A couple of you are bullies. I want you to know that I see you, and I have zero tolerance for your bullshit. Reflect a little, please, but do not mistake me for a viable target.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew D Wilson

Andrew D Wilson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PsychScientists

27 Nov
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best ‘depends’ on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.

I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
First, let’s set the scene. VERY roughly, there are two approaches in coaching. Traditional coaching is very cognitive, all about the coach as a source of knowledge. Then there’s the plucky ecological upstarts who focus on training skilled engagement over knowledge #ymmv
Lots of traditional coaches want to be able to use anything that works in their sessions, regardless of what theory motivates the training idea. They consider this the right move; why commit to some theory that rules things out and might be wrong?
Read 22 tweets
5 Nov
@RCGreyMattersUK @erikwillander @DCGreyMattersUK Here’s a paper that explains the mechanisms of the ecological approach; it’s cites a lot of the relevant empirical literature cognitioninaction.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/golonk…
@RCGreyMattersUK @erikwillander @DCGreyMattersUK Mechanism research is about identifying the real parts and processes involved in producing a behaviour. In the ecological approach, they two main types of pieces are affordances and information
@RCGreyMattersUK @erikwillander @DCGreyMattersUK On information: there’s lots of work on the outfielder problem examining the possible parts involved. Turns out prediction plays no role, but two optical variables do, eg jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?a… and psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02…
Read 19 tweets
31 Oct
Some thoughts on verbal instruction in coaching (seems to be a key point of disagreement between ecological and non-ecological types) 1/n
Coaches want to be able to give their athletes instructions. Usually, this is about technique; ‘place your feet here’, ‘angle your club like this’, etc. This fits with the idea of coaching as imparting knowledge
Ecological coaching approaches tend to veer away from verbal instruction like this, and focuses on creating constrained environments players find their own way through
Read 22 tweets
4 Apr 19
I Burned Out: A Thread
I haven’t been on Twitter for about a month. Taking it off my phone has been part of me unplugging and beginning my recovery from burning out. I wanted to chat about it, though, because a) being open has been good for me and b) good for others.
Burnout is what happens when you are stressed and you don’t stop. It can sneak up on you, but damned if it doesn’t hit like a ton of bricks when it arrives. I’d been in the zone for most of this year, but it all landed about a month ago
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!