ski clips to discuss...

[4ster]

PandemicPowStokeWade

 

[LiquidFeet]

I wrote a long post this morning and somehow lost it. At first I thought it had been deleted, but no, it was me hitting some button inadvertently. So here goes an attempt at rewriting that post.

Trish and Phil have asked for suggestions about how to keep from offending professional skiers whose videos we talk about in these analytical threads. PSIA has a very good protocol it promotes for doing MA in a way that doesn't offend. It requires certification candidates to use this process in the teaching exams. We could use that process.

Here's my take on PSIA's protocol.

1. Describe what you see - without evaluation.
This is the descriptive part of teaching. Translate into words the movements and ski-snow interaction you observe. Avoid saying it's good, bad, efficient, inefficient, weak, strong, defensive, offensive, ugly, inspiring. Do not indicate that something needs improvement, replacement, or fixing/correction.

2. Explain the causes and effects associated with what you see - without evaluation.
This is the predictive/analytical part of teaching. Identify what observable movements cause the particular thing you are focusing on to happen, and/or identify what results happen later in the turn or down the run as an effect of the thing you are focusing on. Be careful to avoid evaluative phrasing. Stick to describing what you see.

3. Explain that different results are possible if the skier does something in particular that's new or different - without evaluation.
This is the prescriptive part of teaching. Assuming the instructor is involved in building the skier's skill level, the instructor should explain how a particular change would bring about new effects. Avoid using terms that are evaluative.

4. On snow, guide the skier to experience doing the new thing and its result; the skier evaluates the results.
This is the evaluative part of teaching. The instructor invites the student to do this new thing, perhaps through isolation exercises or drills, then blend it into their personal skiing. The skier needs to experience new results and then evaluate those results for themselves. Final goal is for the skier to find the results worthwhile and to commit to do follow-up after the lesson so what's been learned will get embedded into muscle memory.

====================

Learning to do MA using #1, 2, and 3 this way takes time and concentration. Building the skill to recognize cause and effect grows with years of teaching experience. The important part relative to our discussion here is the non-evaluative part of this protocol. If we post using these guidelines and make sure we try to eliminate evaluative comments, I think everyone here is capable of posting in a way that won't be hurting anyone's feelings.

All we need is a bit of reminding by the moderators to focus on describing what we see and to avoid evaluative comments. We respond well to reminders by the moderators. The people posting in these threads are certainly capable of describing, analyzing cause and effect, and predicting without evaluative commentary. Let's do that!

@Tricia and @Philpug, I hope you will give the collective the chance to prove its commitment to keeping these threads "clean" of potentially hurtful commentary. Please open the two threads back up and let us do the informative analysis we love to do.

 

[Jack skis]

I can enjoy watching a skier make "some nice turns" without feeling it necessary, or having the ability to criticize their skiing. Some here can and do criticize, analyze, videos showing people doing their thing, for whatever reason, commercial or just for the hell of it. I usually don't keep reading those posts as analyzing skiing isn't the reason I ski, or watch others ski. Riding a lift or standing on the side of a trail, or race course, I see skiers who amaze me, look like they need some help and all points between those two poles. I like to ski, watch others ski, and read about skiing, and have for many years. It's obvious that my opinions aren't the same as some you in this discussion, and I wish you weren't distressed, or is that concerned, about the subject at hand. Phil and Trish have done all of us a favor in creating SKI TALK and I hope we don't wreck it because someone made "some nice turns" even if they were "short" turns.

 

[James]

Could we have an example from Mike’s thread that got it closed?
And Erik’s for that matter, though I presume that was closed because of the other one as I don’t think there was really much cause in that thread.

I'm an English teacher, but I don't want every remark I ever speak or write examined and judged for precision, correctness, and effectiveness.

So newspapers, news reports, and blogs aren’t fair game to talk about grammar?

Tony, you're most certainly not 'that' guy.

Depends on the meaning of ‘that’...
I have no problem with non instructors commenting in instruction threads. Tony has good comments.

Most of these ma threads go on massive tangents anyway. The comments may have nothing to do with the skier. If you say threads should be closed when on tangents, that’s a fine line to making an incredibly boring site thst had no conversation. I was on a csr site like tvst, they moderated perfectly fine and informative posts that were off topic. It was incredibly stifling. No wonder people never posted.

 

[James]

I usually don't keep reading those posts as analyzing skiing isn't the reason I ski, or watch others ski.

Therefore you’re opposed to ski threads analyzing skiing? Or only when it goes “negative”?

Posts of people complaining about over analysis, in an analysis thread are frankly ridiculous and should be given no weight. It happens over and over. You get the “I just ski...” post. Ok, ski. And I don’t mean you personally.
It’s like someone going into the myriad number of drinking threads and complaining about drinking. Though that would have more validity as there’s huge societal effects, as opposed to some pro skier getting butt hurt because some idiot on the internet had something negative to say. It’s absurd.

 

[Tony S]

Posts of people complaining about over analysis, in an analysis thread are frankly ridiculous and should be given no weight.

+389.5

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I just want to say that if one person is posting in this thread saying that everyone who uses this forum is wrong, that's kind of Flat Earthish.

 

[mdf]

+389.5

Didn't you mean 389.483?

 

[Tony S]

Didn't you mean 389.483?

Yes!!!! Thanks. That's exactly what I meant!

 

[LiquidFeet]

I can't tell what @Jack skis really meant in that post up there. But I don't think, and I hope I'm right, that he wants to stop the technical discussions from happening because he doesn't like reading the detailed analysis that goes on.

I know people who enjoy participating in these threads feel threatened now because two threads were shut down quickly without warning. But let's not jump to the conclusion that @Jack skis is championing further censorship of this nature.

 

[tch]

+1000 on @LiquidFeet's post #122.
Description, analysis, guidance... without evaluation. The problem comes in when judgmental words come into play: "sloppy", "lazy", "weak", "poor", etc. Then it's on to "bad", "not worth responding to", etc.

I can raise critique phrasing in my students' writing without saying it's "bad". I might ask them if to look at it again themselves, asking if that construction is as strong as it could be or if other words would work more effectively. I might even suggest some alternatives, and, if necessary, explain why I thought those alternatives were better. I might even in some circumstances say that I personally don't find their phrasing or construction to my taste. But to just dismiss something as "weak" or "poor" is just facile labelling and not helpful to the individual student or others in the room.

 

[LiquidFeet]

+1000 on @LiquidFeet's post #122.
Description, analysis, guidance... without evaluation. The problem comes in when judgmental words come into play: "sloppy", "lazy", "weak", "poor", etc. Then it's on to "bad", "not worth responding to", etc.

I can raise critique phrasing in my students' writing without saying it's "bad". I might ask them if to look at it again themselves, asking if that construction is as strong as it could be or if other words would work more effectively. I might even suggest some alternatives, and, if necessary, explain why I thought those alternatives were better. I might even in some circumstances say that I personally don't find their phrasing or construction to my taste. But to just dismiss something as "weak" or "poor" is just facile labelling and not helpful to the individual student or others in the room.

Hello fellow teacher!

Yes that's the thing with teaching. One needs to "redirect" dead-end attempts by students to fulfill some intent. That redirection needs to be done with tact to avoid turning off students, and to avoid coming off as expressing "personal opinion" that can be seen as arbitrary, unsupportable, or unfair.

I taught high school then college level studio art (now retired). We'd do whole class critiques almost every day with the work-in-progress on display for all to see. Everyone had to get used to hearing what everyone else thought of their work, not just what I thought, and everyone had to learn to tell their peers what they saw and how it affected them - with tact. A teacher learns how to handle that kind of critique and discussion over time. This I think is what you are describing. It's the same with on snow instruction. It's the same with online movement analysis threads.

This kind of tact, the kind that involves describing without evaluation, is a skill that technical thread participants can learn. We will need reminders, as everyone does. Thus the need for moderation. Hopefully it will be gentle moderation, not unexpected shut-downs.

 

[mister moose]

So which is it...

We are freely discussing in an open forum that people can listen in on if they so choose, or are we on stage in a public setting for a prescribed public purpose and therefore need to speak with careful self editing? Put another way, are we in the lounge or the in classroom on parents day?

 

[tch]

^^^^ False dichotomy. You can speak freely and openly without being rude, condescending, dismissive, or judgmental. Just as you can make a point without resorting to cursing or swear words. It just takes a little self-education and personal responsibility. A lot of folks who rail against "political correctness" or "polite" conversation are just unwilling to alter their own behaviors. There is no reason lounge talk can't be on the same level of civility and mutual respect as public classroom presentation.

 

[Tricia]

I can't tell what @Jack skis really meant in that post up there. But I don't think, and I hope I'm right, that he wants to stop the technical discussions from happening because he doesn't like reading the detailed analysis that goes on.

I know people who enjoy participating in these threads feel threatened now because two threads were shut down quickly without warning. But let's not jump to the conclusion that @Jack skis is championing further censorship of this nature.

I think Jack skis is simply stating that he comes to the site for something different than you do and his enjoyment comes in an entirely different place.
For him the analysis isn't as important as the feeling.


Having skied with him at Big Sky a couple years ago, ....That's my understanding.

 

[Mike King]

I think Jack skis is simply stating that he comes to the site for something different than you do and his enjoyment comes in an entirely different place.
For him the analysis isn't as important as the feeling.


Having skied with him at Big Sky a couple years ago, ....That's my understanding.

That's fine and there's plenty of other content at SkiTalk for him to entertain himself with. Nothing to see here, move on.

Mike

 

[JESinstr]

A lot of folks who rail against "political correctness" or "polite" conversation are just unwilling to alter their own behaviors.

Hmmm conflating political correctness and being polite. Now there's a Orwellian rabbit hole for ya

 

[mister moose]

^^^^ False dichotomy. You can speak freely and openly without being rude, condescending, dismissive, or judgmental. Just as you can make a point without resorting to cursing or swear words. It just takes a little self-education and personal responsibility. A lot of folks who rail against "political correctness" or "polite" conversation are just unwilling to alter their own behaviors. There is no reason lounge talk can't be on the same level of civility and mutual respect as public classroom presentation.

I understand the desire to wish the world is a better place, and to make some effort to make it better. However, there is a difference, otherwise teachers lounges wouldn't exist, they would just hang out in the cafeteria or some other public room. To ignore the difference is to ignore reality. The need might be that the world isn't perfect, and some teachers just grew up using profanity and see it a no big deal. The need might be to discuss school policy that is inappropriate to discuss in front of a class of students. The need might be to discuss employment practices, or a union issue.

Civility should not be a synonym of content. The two are different. What's more, everyone's version of civility is different. As I said earlier, I favor rich content over pablum, and to do that you* let a lot of what you* might consider borderline flow right past.



*you = Royal you.

 

[Crank]

I think Jack skis is simply stating that he comes to the site for something different than you do and his enjoyment comes in an entirely different place.
For him the analysis isn't as important as the feeling

Not that it has a ton to do with this particular thread but... shocker - I think that this is how most skiers feel. Myself included.

 

[Tony S]

everyone's version of civility is different

This is really the root of the matter, isn't it? Seems to me it can't be as simple as that, or "civility" and "do and say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want" would be synonyms. The whole point of civility is to put some level of consensus around what is acceptable behavior and what is not.