Nyts. Losing Is Good For You

[Kilmer17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/losing-is-good-for-you.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

LOS ANGELES — AS children return to school this fall and sign up for a new year’s worth of extracurricular activities, parents should keep one question in mind. Whether your kid loves Little League or gymnastics, ask the program organizers this: “Which kids get awards?” If the answer is, “Everybody gets a trophy,” find another program.

 

 

Great op ed.

 

My daughters play softball and their league this year changed back to trophies only for the league winners.

 

Great move.

[JimboDaMan]

I agree with the sentiment, but I've always felt this is a little overblown. My kids grew up in that environment, mostly sports but also Scouts, drama, etc. Sometimes every kid got something and while I think trophies for all are unnecessary I don't have a problem with everybody getting a coin or some trinket to acknowledge their efforts.

I understand why showering the least talented or hardworking kid with exactly the same praise as the star is a problem. But I've never really seen that happen. Nor have I ever seen the kids confused as to who is good and who isn't. To me that's more a coaching issue than anything else.

[pjfootballer]

If we didn't win, we didn't get a trophy.  And we LIKED IT!  We LOVED IT! (Was that Louis Black?)

 

Seriously, kids need to learn how to win and lose with grace.  That's how the real world works.  I think the best teams should win the trophies, but I'm not against giving the others some participant medals or ribbons for a job well done.

 

I used to get "heat particiant" ribbons for swim team.  I wasn't very good.  My sister was a great swimmer.  I think the best I ever did was 3rd place.  She got all the ribbons and I got a ton of heat participant ribbons. 

[spjunkies]

The Redskins must believe in that concept.

[Predicto]

This is a huge meme among conservatives.  I've never understood why it was such a big deal.  

[Kilmer17]

This is a huge meme among conservatives.  I've never understood why it was such a big deal.  

 

 

Ignoring the attempt to make this a partisan political thread.

 

I think it's an issue because youth sports provides us the opportunity to teach kids how to deal with failure and loss in an environment where they can work hard and improve relatively easy.

 

As the Op Ed pointed out, we're becoming an entitlement society, where too many believe that just showing up entitles them to rewards.

[Predicto]

Ignoring the attempt to make this a partisan political thread.

 

I think it's an issue because youth sports provides us the opportunity to teach kids how to deal with failure and loss in an environment where they can work hard and improve relatively easy.

 

As the Op Ed pointed out, we're becoming an entitlement society, where too many believe that just showing up entitles them to rewards.

 

Not trying to make this a partisan political thread.  Just trying to understand.  I see this "everyone gets a trophy" thing pop up in discussions about Obamacare, about Benghazi, about everything.   I never quite see what the big deal is.

 

I'm not buying the connection.  Letting a little kid get a trophy for trying isn't a problem, IMO.   They can tell the difference.   They still know who won, and they still want to be that person who wins.

[sacase]

This is a huge meme among conservatives.  I've never understood why it was such a big deal.  

Because it teaches that mediocrity is OK and should be rewarded. It is part of the problem in society and basically teaches kids, hey I am just as good as the other guy, even when I am not. Losing teaches far more. If you lose and accept it then you probably shouldn't be doing what you are doing. If you are losing and it pisses you off, then you are motivated to learn more to get better. If you want that trophy, they you have to work hard for it, not expect it to be handed to you.

Not trying to make this a partisan political thread.  Just trying to understand.  I see this "everyone gets a trophy" thing pop up in discussions about Obamacare, about Benghazi, about everything.   I never quite see what the big deal is.

 

I'm not buying the connection.  Letting a little kid get a trophy for trying isn't a problem, IMO.   They can tell the difference.   They still know who won, and they still want to be that person who wins.

why should they be rewarded for showing up? heck they don't even keep score. They ensure that everyone gets a chance. When I played we had a 10 run rule past the third inning. Our team tried to win every game like that. If you don't like it do something about it on the field, don't expect someone to stop it for you.

[Xameil]

Not trying to make this a partisan political thread.  Just trying to understand.  I see this "everyone gets a trophy" thing pop up in discussions about Obamacare, about Benghazi, about everything.   I never quite see what the big deal is.

 

I'm not buying the connection.  Letting a little kid get a trophy for trying isn't a problem, IMO.   They can tell the difference.   They still know who won, and they still want to be that person who wins.

I know this is probably a stupid question, but didn't you read the article?

The author points out that yes the kids know who won, but because everyone gets an award anyway, the win eventually becomes pointless and the ones who win start to not try as hard anymore since the ones who don't win don't strive to win since they will win an award anyways. Its a domino effect.

Also, competition breeds excellence. It happens everywhere, and if kids start to realize that they really don't need to compete to get rewarded, then why bother. These aren't just theories, these are proven concepts.

[Predicto]

Because it teaches that mediocrity is OK and should be rewarded. It is part of the problem in society and basically teaches kids, hey I am just as good as the other guy, even when I am not. Losing teaches far more. If you lose and accept it then you probably shouldn't be doing what you are doing. If you are losing and it pisses you off, then you are motivated to learn more to get better. If you want that trophy, they you have to work hard for it, not expect it to be handed to you.

 

I understand the general principle.  I question whether the concern is misplaced and overstated.  

 

I have kids.   They got a few trophys for participating when growing up.  It made them feel good that they had tried and the trophy made them feel like a part of the team, but it didn't fool them into thinking that they won, or make them not want to win, or make them try less.   They still wanted the win, or understood why they weren't going to get it.  It didn't make them "coddled" and "spoiled."

 

I guess all I'm saying is that little kid sports aren't a good proxy for broader social darwinism arguments, in my opinion.  

[Kilmer17]

Not trying to make this a partisan political thread.  Just trying to understand.  I see this "everyone gets a trophy" thing pop up in discussions about Obamacare, about Benghazi, about everything.   I never quite see what the big deal is.

 

I'm not buying the connection.  Letting a little kid get a trophy for trying isn't a problem, IMO.   They can tell the difference.   They still know who won, and they still want to be that person who wins.

I have no idea how the trophy idea could be applied to an argument against Obamacare or the Beghazi incident.

 

Back on topic though, there are a few levels of this to address.  On one hand the author does a good job of explaining why giving trophies to the winners and EVERYONE who participates can lead to those winning not trying as hard in the future, and those losing still feel that simple participation is enough for reward.  There are certainly circumstances where that is appropriate, but the argument is against it applying the majority of the time.

 

Another level though is the idea that sports teams dont keep score, dont have any winners or losers, and treats every participant as an equal person at the end.  1 trophy for all who tried.  And again, there are certainly circumstances where that could be appropriate.  But it becoming the norm.  And that's a problem.

 

P, do you think there is a benefit to teaching a child how to handle losing and failure?

[Predicto]

I know this is probably a stupid question, but didn't you read the article?

The author points out that yes the kids know who won, but because everyone gets an award anyway, the win eventually becomes pointless and the ones who win start to not try as hard anymore since the ones who don't win don't strive to win since they will win an award anyways. Its a domino effect.

Also, competition breeds excellence. It happens everywhere, and if kids start to realize that they really don't need to compete to get rewarded, then why bother. These aren't just theories, these are proven concepts.

 

Yes, I read it.  I think the author's point is wrong and overstated and silly in this context.   I don't buy it.  I think that someone, somewhere, drew this analogy a few years ago, and it has become an exercise in group think.  

 

She is taking a broad social problem (entitlement) and applying a worthless symbolic fix to something completely different - participatory kids sports, where the goals should be to get exercise, develop social skills, and have fun, try your best, and so on.... 

 

the primary lesson of kids sports should not be how to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women.   (yes that was an exaggeration for effect).

 

If her article was about rampant grade inflation, I would buy it.  I don't buy it here.   

I have no idea how the trophy idea could be applied to an argument against Obamacare or the Beghazi incident.

 

Back on topic though, there are a few levels of this to address.  On one hand the author does a good job of explaining why giving trophies to the winners and EVERYONE who participates can lead to those winning not trying as hard in the future, and those losing still feel that simple participation is enough for reward.  There are certainly circumstances where that is appropriate, but the argument is against it applying the majority of the time.

 

Another level though is the idea that sports teams dont keep score, dont have any winners or losers, and treats every participant as an equal person at the end.  1 trophy for all who tried.  And again, there are certainly circumstances where that could be appropriate.  But it becoming the norm.  And that's a problem.

 

P, do you think there is a benefit to teaching a child how to handle losing and failure?

 

Yes, I do.  Absolutely.  

 

I still don't buy the author's premise. 

 

edit - or perhaps I should say that the author identifies a real problem, but the average kids sport coach attempting to apply her solution is more likely to do so simplistically, by overglorifying winners in kids sports while discouraging everyone else from participating at all.  

 

I don't see denying little kids a participation trophy or ribbon as a proxy for good parenting, and I don't believe my kids learned a bad lesson from being rewarded (in a tiny way) for trying and participating, especially when they were very young.   

[Kilmer17]

How is rewarding winners discouraging for all others?

 

That's a motivation.  That's a good thing.  You want a trophy?  Work harder.  Put the effort in.  Train more.  Study harder.

 

I also dont think we're talking about 5-6 year olds.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I understand the general principle.  I question whether the concern is misplaced and overstated.  

 

I have kids.   They got a few trophys for participating when growing up.  It made them feel good that they had tried and the trophy made them feel like a part of the team, but it didn't fool them into thinking that they won, or make them not want to win, or make them try less.   They still wanted the win, or understood why they weren't going to get it.  It didn't make them "coddled" and "spoiled."

 

I guess all I'm saying is that little kid sports aren't a good proxy for broader social darwinism arguments, in my opinion.  

 

Maybe it was the coaching and your parenting that taught them that in spite of the trophy thing?

 

My son is 6 so we're just now going through the winning and losing thing. He's obsessed with the score of everything. After each season of whatever he's playing, the entire team gets medals so that makes everyone feel great about working hard and improving. But as it relates to a specific game all the dads are pretty good about letting them know if they won or lost.

 

What I'm trying to teach my kid about winning is that he should enjoy it but be respectful to the other players/kids. What I want him to learn about losing is that he should accept it if he tried is best and that he can continue to work hard to occasionally avoid it. It's a difficult thing depending on the age and sensitivity of your child (at least it is for me).

How is rewarding winners discouraging for all others?

 

That's a motivation.  That's a good thing.  You want a trophy?  Work harder.  Put the effort in.  Train more.  Study harder.

 

I also dont think we're talking about 5-6 year olds.

 

That all makes sense.

 

For 5-6 year old specifically I recently read that you should praise and admonish them ONLY for things that they can control (working hard, paying attention, doing the right thing) rather than outcomes. The reason being that they love praise and we want to attach that to the correct actions.

 

For example, my son could be playing basketball and not listening or passing the ball and still win. On the other hand, he could be working with his team, doing the right things, trying his best and still lose.

 

The 5-6 year old range is a tough one for me as a parent!

[Predicto]

Yeah, it is possible that I am reacting negatively because I am thinking about ordinary people applying this principle to 5 year olds in the same way that we would apply it to 15 year olds.

 

Of course, I did send my kids to Quaker schools, which arguably took this "everyone is equal and trying is what matters" thing perhaps to the opposite extreme.  

 

For 5-6 year old specifically I recently read that you should praise and admonish them ONLY for things that they can control (working hard, paying attention, doing the right thing) rather than outcomes. The reason being that they love praise and we want to attach that to the correct actions.

 

For example, my son could be playing basketball and not listening or passing the ball and still win. On the other hand, he could be working with his team, doing the right things, trying his best and still lose.

 

The 5-6 year old range is a tough one for me as a parent!

 

The biggest rule I have heard is that you should praise small children for trying hard and paying attention and doing their best, not for 1) just "being smart" or just "being athletic", and not for 2) winning at something.  

 

That way they will strive to be the best they can be, instead of thinking that they are 1) automatically special enough just by existing, or 2) only special when they win.  

 

It's a fine line.  We don't want to enable lazyness and entitlement, but we don't want to be the Great Santini either. 

[Xameil]

I understand the general principle.  I question whether the concern is misplaced and overstated.  

 

I have kids.   They got a few trophys for participating when growing up.  It made them feel good that they had tried and the trophy made them feel like a part of the team, but it didn't fool them into thinking that they won, or make them not want to win, or make them try less.   They still wanted the win, or understood why they weren't going to get it.  It didn't make them "coddled" and "spoiled."

 

I guess all I'm saying is that little kid sports aren't a good proxy for broader social darwinism arguments, in my opinion.

I think it may also have to deal with parenting, because you can definitely start to see it with the generation that started to get "participation" trophies. Most (there are always exceptions) feel they are entitled to something just for existing, which we all know is the wrong attitude.

[PeterMP]

I have a 7 year old who plays soccer.  Officially, no score is kept. I've never heard a parent tell them the score, and I've heard more than one parent asked and the answer being I don't know.  The KIDS keep score.  They not only know what the total score is they know how many goals they've scored as an individual.

 

I don't think, from what I've see, we have much of an issue with kids understanding winning as an objective or a goal.

 

Given issues with obesity in this country, I think it makes sense to keep certain things positive in terms of participation.

 

Why should we incentivize participation?  Because in a lot of cases, including youth sports, participation does matter, and it in of to itself has benefits to the individual and the group.

[Predicto]

I think it may also have to deal with parenting, because you can definitely start to see it with the generation that started to get "participation" trophies. Most (there are always exceptions) feel they are entitled to something just for existing, which we all know is the wrong attitude.

 

It also started with the generation that rode in car safety seats, and that knew what a cell phone is, and that can type better than they can handwrite, and that have never seen the Redskins win a Superbowl - but none of those things have anything to do with entitlement either.   Correlation is not causation, and I'm still not buying into the causation here.

I have a 7 year old who plays soccer.  Officially, no score is kept. I've never heard a parent tell them the score, and I've heard more than one parent asked and the answer being I don't know.  The KIDS keep score.  They not only know what the total score is they know how many goals they've scored as an individual.

 

I don't think, from what I've see, we have much of an issue with kids understanding winning as an objective or a goal.

 

Given issues with obesity in this country, I think it makes sense to keep certain things positive in terms of participation.

 

Why should we incentivize participation?  Because in a lot of cases, including youth sports, participation does matter, and it in of to itself has benefits to the individual and the group.

 

Exactly.   I'm a sports fan, but I look at youth sports as a way to get as many kids as possible to get exercise and make friends and learn about being part of a team.  Producing the next great soccer star is entirely secondary, and going out of our way to emphasize winning really isn't particularly useful.   

[Xameil]

It also started with the generation that rode in car safety seats, and that knew what a cell phone is, and that can type better than they can handwrite, and that have never seen the Redskins win a Superbowl - but none of those things have anything to do with entitlement either.   Correlation is not causation, and I'm still not buying into the causation here.

 

So...the study they conducted and their findings mean nothing?

[Predicto]

So...the study they conducted and their findings mean nothing?

 

No, not nothing.  Teaching your kids to work hard, learn to lose and try again, and to not be entitled are all vitally important.  

 

I'm just not buying fully into this part of the syllogism, that getting participation awards in kids sports is a causal factor, or even a reasonable symptom of the problem.   

 

In other words, this study:

 

 

Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, found that kids respond positively to praise; they enjoy hearing that they’re talented, smart and so on. But after such praise of their innate abilities, they collapse at the first experience of difficulty. Demoralized by their failure, they say they’d rather cheat than risk failing again.

 

In recent eye-tracking experiments by the researchers Bradley Morris and Shannon Zentall, kids were asked to draw pictures. Those who heard praise suggesting they had an innate talent were then twice as fixated on mistakes they’d made in their pictures.

 

is followed by this paragraph: 

 

 

By age 4 or 5, children aren’t fooled by all the trophies. They are surprisingly accurate in identifying who excels and who struggles. Those who are outperformed know it and give up, while those who do well feel cheated when they aren’t recognized for their accomplishments. They, too, may give up.

 

 

I'm not sure that the studies being quoted have much correlation with the conclusion being drawn.

 

 

 

as an aside, I hate the new format - I can never get my quotes to work right anymore

 

 

[JimboDaMan]

So...the study they conducted and their findings mean nothing?

Which study so you mean? The one that said the kids who received praise worked twice as hard at getting better?

I'm being facetious - a little bit anyway. But I don't see that the studies referenced actually support some of the conclusions being made.

[RedskinsFan44]

My experience with my kids sports runs counter to this.  I think the pressure to excel at a young age is greater than ever.  My kids play soccer in Howard County and there are tryouts at 8 years old separating them by ability into advanced and travel teams.  God forbid your kid tries to pick up a sport later than age 6, they are unlikely to catch up.  Clinics, camps, etc.  I don't remember things being quite as competitive at an early age when I was growing up.  And they definitely keep score. 

 

I see the trophies for everyone as more emblematic of our materialist society, we need an object Ito commemorate everything we do.  Run a race, get a medal and a t-shirt.  Go to a conference, get a bag and a pen.   If you have a birthday party for your kid it is now customary to give a bag of shwag to the attendees. 

 

They do give bigger trophies to the winning teams, but I think the idea of winning is most important to the kids.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

My experience with my kids sports runs counter to this.  I think the pressure to excel at a young age is greater than ever.  My kids play soccer in Howard County and there are tryouts at 8 years old separating them by ability into advanced and travel teams.  God forbid your kid tries to pick up a sport later than age 6, they are unlikely to catch up.  Clinics, camps, etc.  I don't remember things being quite as competitive at an early age when I was growing up.  And they definitely keep score. 

 

I see the trophies for everyone as more emblematic of our materialist society, we need an object Ito commemorate everything we do.  Run a race, get a medal and a t-shirt.  Go to a conference, get a bag and a pen.   If you have a birthday party for your kid it is now customary to give a bag of shwag to the attendees. 

 

They do give bigger trophies to the winning teams, but I think the idea of winning is most important to the kids.

 

We're going off the tracks here (I've already chimed in on the actual topic), but I'm glad to read this.

 

My son turned 6 in July and has already played soccer (3 seasons), t-ball, flag football, and basketball (2 seasons). He also takes tae kwon do and swimming lessons. By the time I was 6, I had played exactly 1 season of soccer. Understanding that by following the herd, I'm part of the problem, but I fear that not letting him play these sports will discourage him when he starts a couple years later since he'll be so far behind.

 

I didn't realize we had gotten so activity-focused with kids this early on. I wish I was either stronger/more confident as a parent to hold him out of things or that society hadn't gone and sped up the clock on children over the past 3 decades. It's ridiculous and I notice more and more parents putting the focus on the wrong things. There is value to the activities (structure, team work, exercise, friendships, etc.) but I'm not sure that yelling at refs for missing calls or complaining that your coach doesn't have good enough plays is warranted!

[Henry]

I think all of this is overblown. Trophies. No trophies. Whatever. It doesn't make a lick of difference. Kids like to run around and play. As long as you do that they'll be fine.

 

"Everyone gets a trophy" has become such a boogieman these days. "When I was a kid we had to EARN our trophies. They only gave out one every three years and we were THANKFUL."

 

Uh huh. Tell me about it old man.

[Forehead]

You know, I remember playing soccer and baseball growing up, and yeah, we got trophies for participation, but there were bigger ones for winning, and kids know the difference.  I sure as hell did; I knew when I was going up against a kid I could take off the dribble, or when I was pitching to a kid who I knew wouldn't be able to hit the ball, and vice versa.  Kids know, the whole hand-wringing over "everyone gets a trophy" is overblown.  My participation trophies went in a box, the only ones I kept out on display were for seasons where I won something.