by sussexpob » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:07 am
I guess to bring it into context, the idea of these types of tests are simply used off hand to judge a persons latent inabilities seems to be wrong. The coach should be cross-referencing these to actual problems that he notices, or has noticed, in live situations. They are therefore an improvement and maintainence tool and not something that should be used to simply scratch names of lists.The tests themselves are not accurate enough adequately judge issues in isolation. They can only be used in combination to show practical trends, and from that test the improvement levels on that particular problem.
I think the main reason for this is, as said above, self perception. A person may be introvert but consider themselves out going. I know people of very low intelligence from extremely low intelligence families, who consider themselves geniuses on a relative basis. Some people who are not funny think they are.... or good looking, or confident in their abililty etc etc.
The best example I have ever read (which was actually the reason I ended up reading about the French guy above) was that Nicholas Bendtner, a terrible former Arsenal striker who couldnt buy a goal, essentially once broke a psychological test he undertook because the creators of the test hadnt actually considered the scientific possibility that someone could ever had a level of self-belief that Nicholas Bendtner had. On a scale of 0-9, Bentdner got 10-11 on confidence, which was seen as impossible. It apparently demonstrated that Bendtner actually, 100%, thought that if he stabbed someone for no reason, he wasnt at fault. If he dribbled past his own defence with no opposition around him, and lashed in an own goal, it was not his fault. And he apparently actually believed this, the tests were made to be less obvious than your average genius would be able to fudge it, and he passed other tests to confirm it. He was actually a man with such levels of self belief, he thought he was perfect. That he could never be wrong.
Another important consideration from that is, how much confidence is too much? How much self belief is too little? How much of other factors?
Well the answer was explained above. The test isnt rating that, its simply asking to cross reference it to very specific and noticable applications. If a player doesnt concentrate, test concentration. He is improves, then it doesnt matter how intelligent he is or what he scores on a test. The very improvement he has made shows that the overall psychological picture is good enough.
So Dawson might be able to improve on averaging 43 per wicket in the county championship, Leach may not..... but 21 per wicket every year needs no improvement, and 43 needs a LOT to prove international class. So the question should be, even if Leach cant improve based on these tests, is he good enough?
I dont think judging on what I know, Andy Flower does this. It seems that he is hellbent on the potential to improve, and not judging players on the level they are already. I think is because he sees a learner as being a bottomless pit rather than settling for someone who might merely be useful. He wants to strive for producing World Class legends on an hit ratio of a 1000:1, then picking people who are reliable straight away, but will never be world class.
And for the record, I got INTP -T/-J.....
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru
And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!