- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 13,686
- Reaction score
- 16,171
I'm actually in London right now, and woke up pretty early because I'm jet-lagged
Cheerio then.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I'm actually in London right now, and woke up pretty early because I'm jet-lagged
I mistyped that, I didn't mean "relatives of ex-athletes" I simply meant relatives of ex-coaches.
And you seem really pissed off for some reason, and incapable of discussing this without resorting to insults, so I think I'll end it with you here.
Interesting point that someone raised the topic of nepotism re this thread. Does the name Taibbi ring any bells? Taibbi's dad is Mike Taibbi who once worked in Boston as a reporter and is now with MSNBC. He didn't get his job via nepotism, just we go into professions we know or see our friends/relatives pursue.
He has mastered the art of controversy. Just do a search for Taibbi and the death of the pope and you'll find a tasteless link that I won't post here. He writes some interesting stuff regardless of your political views but like many at RS, he thinks he's smarter than the rest of us...
I mistyped that, I didn't mean "relatives of ex-athletes" I simply meant relatives of ex-coaches.
n 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.
Awesome.
Although a smarmy a-hole myself, I think I have to agree with this. Although he's a great writer, this guy's horse is very high.
Isn't all (or at least most) "intelligence" very specific. I don't think Einstein or Hawking could coach a football team or even necessarily survive on a desert island, but those guys ain't too dumb. Likewise, while Ditka may not have a gigantic IQ, he sure has alot more football smarts than 99% of us, not to mention a great knack for motivation and self-promotion. Same for Parcells (although he may actually have a very high IQ). I'd like to see what makes this writer so smart other than his writing techniques and pomposity.
That said, he's still fun to read.
n 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.
Awesome.
I'd say you're missing the point of the article though. I agree with you that a smart guy--just being smart--couldn't coach a football team. But the writer is saying that Belichick is SMART, relatively. And he's among people who aren't that smart (if you buy his theory that most coaches come from the player ranks, and let's face it, on a real world level, the players are indeed, NOT THAT SMART. There's evidence out there that proves it). So, he's saying that a guy who CAN coach football and IS smart would tend to look down on the nitwits around him.
I think the writer is misinformed about the type of people who become coaches, though he is correct that there are real nitwits out there (John Madden and Mike Ditka, etc.).
I would also say that he's wrong that real geniuses never make errors, whether it's the scientist prof. who sleeps with a 20 year old co-ed, the dot.com genius who rips off his company and gets tagged, etc.
People have character flaws, and though intelligence can sometimes help people avoid huge errors, it doesn't always happen this way.
I actually think this IS awesome. That takes real balls.
And really, I think he's more of a madman than a genius for doing this.
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation and misbegotten opinion being thrown around in this thread. You've inspired me on this Sunday morning to throw around some more.
Football players are dumb? I have this argument with my niece all the time. Some are, some aren't. Some, like Vrabel and Watson, if they couldn't make millions playing football, would be in medical school or law school. Others are dumb as a rock. Same as the real world.
There are many facets to intelligence, and people who are smart in one area can be dumb in others? That's a commonly held, politically correct, and scientifically invalid observation. It also defies common sense. There is a concept of g, a general intelligence, that is partly heritable and partly environmental, that seems to affect most aspects of mentation. People who score above average in math skills also tend to score above average in verbal skills, assuming English is their first language. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. This stuff is pretty easy to prove.
People succeed for lots of different reasons. Charisma and leadership skills, aggression and ambition, intelligence and judgment, physical size, physical appearance. There's no need to apologize for others lacking intelligence any more than apologizing for others lacking charisma, size, judgment, or appearance. But you do need to avoid painting an entire profession with an ugly brush, from smart, character guys like Fernando Bryant, to thugs like Michael Vick. Or for that matter, from reporters like Tom Curran who would bring grace and wisdom to any profession, to smug self-aggrandizing intellectuals like Easterbrook.
I did think the excerpt from the article was funny. But it was also insulting to a lot of good people.
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation and misbegotten opinion being thrown around in this thread. You've inspired me on this Sunday morning to throw around some more.
Football players are dumb? I have this argument with my niece all the time. Some are, some aren't. Some, like Vrabel and Watson, if they couldn't make millions playing football, would be in medical school or law school. Others are dumb as a rock. Same as the real world.
There are many facets to intelligence, and people who are smart in one area can be dumb in others? That's a commonly held, politically correct, and scientifically invalid observation. It also defies common sense. There is a concept of g, a general intelligence, that is partly heritable and partly environmental, that seems to affect most aspects of mentation. People who score above average in math skills also tend to score above average in verbal skills, assuming English is their first language. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. This stuff is pretty easy to prove.
People succeed for lots of different reasons. Charisma and leadership skills, aggression and ambition, intelligence and judgment, physical size, physical appearance. There's no need to apologize for others lacking intelligence any more than apologizing for others lacking charisma, size, judgment, or appearance. But you do need to avoid painting an entire profession with an ugly brush, from smart, character guys like Fernando Bryant, to thugs like Michael Vick. Or for that matter, from reporters like Tom Curran who would bring grace and wisdom to any profession, to smug self-aggrandizing intellectuals like Easterbrook.
I did think the excerpt from the article was funny. But it was also insulting to a lot of good people.
There's a fine line between having balls and being stupid. Being the editor of a newspaper in Russia reminds me of the big fish in a small pond cliche. To take a page from the writer's theories, I don't think the newspapers in Russia are overflowing with journalistic talent.
You may be right about that. Honestly, I was more caught up in commenting on the back-and-forth ABOUT the article than the article itself.
That being said, I guess I just don't like it when broad brush strokes are used to impugn a group of people with anything other than a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence. So while I agree that BB generally is the smartest guy in his "room" and that many athletes are not exactly brilliant, that doesn't lead me to believe that NFL head coaches as a whole aren't "more intelligent" than average, whatever the heck that means.
BUT, I do agree with most everything you've written, and honestly I really did like that article. The guy is a helluva writer. I guess I'm just into full disclosure or whatever.
It's vaguely about Belichick. Or was at one point.I'm betting that this is one of those off-off-off-topic threads that somehow manages to remain in the main forum.
Uh oh, I'm going to have to start questioning your literacy skills.I guess he can only cite the available tests that are out there.
For one, there's the noted deficit of literacy skills in the top football recruits at the top football schools. Then there's the Wonderlic, which isn't a math/verbal sort of test, but more of a common sense type test. There are wonderlics available online. I'd bet that the posters on this board would score much much higher than the average NFL player on that test.
I can't think of any other two empirical measures that would pit football players against the general populace.
There are some other types of measures, such as how often these guys seem to be in trouble with the law or how badly they handle their money, but this is only anecdotal information, and it can easily be explained away as "celebrities think they can get away with stuff" or "when you have a lot of money, there's more of a risk of mishandling it."