![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmer[note: this entry has been edited after initial posting. Some of the comments might not make sense if you don't realize that they reference the initial posting, not the edited version]
I think that a thought that I have been having for a while has finally started to gel.
When you're trying to teach, coach, or help in a similar manner, a person in a one-on-one situation, there are some guidelines that I think work best. However, it took a lot of text to express them...
The first guideline is that you have to accept that person as they are. If the goal is to help the person be able to run a marathon, you need to figure out how far, and how fast, that person can run right now. It doesn't matter if the person is a couch potato, or is already a very good runner, and it sure as heck doesn't matter how good the person "should" be.
None of that matters, because the point is to determine where to start training for the marathon. If you start having the person trying to run too far or to fast, you could injure them, or frustrate them, and either of these will make you a bad coach.
Now, a good coach will get a runner who is able to keep running, but not currently enjoying running, to keep running. But, there is a fine line between a good coach and a bad coach here. A bad coach will keep pushing, without taking into account where the person is right now.
Also, a good coach start at a challenging stage, because otherwise the person being coached will get bored.
There is an attitude that a good coach will bring forth in a person. Although the coach wants the person to think that current stage below the eventual goal is "not good enough", the coach wants the person to think that he, or she, will reach that goal.
So, a person being coached will have a semi-satisfied feeling of approaching a goal, while still feeling a striving to reach the goal.
A good coach doesn't make a person feel guilty for actual, honest-to-goodness limitations. Instead, the coach presents a challenge to overcome those limitations, either directly, or by using some other technique.
(There was an "After School Special" -that was the name of a series of made-for-TV movies that aired in, I suppose, the seventies - that involved a runner, and a running coach, and the runner, while he was pretty fast, didn't have much of a "kick"... he couldn't pour on the speed near the end of the race. The coach's solution was not to make him into something he wasn't; he said he didn't have much of a kick, he was going to have to get faster start. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.)
If there was someone that you could call a perfect coach, that person would be able to motivate anyone. But, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, the coach would use different methods for different people. Some people would be teased, and cajoled, and have their motivation playfully evoked. Others would be treated as if they were raw recruits in basic training. Others would receive helpful suggestions, and, who knows what other methods the person might use.
However, the important thing is, the coach would be doing something that helped motivate that person, in a way that that person could understand. Done properly, the person being coached would always have, in a corner of his, or her, mind, a realization that the coach is being helpful. (Obviously, this applies more on the coach is playing "drill sergeant" than when the coach is using a gentler method.)
Okay, so what am I suggesting is good for coaching?
1) knowing, or being able to find out, what a person's abilities are.
2) finding a challenging level on which to engage the person being coached (not too hard, and not too easy)
3) helping the person continue to strive for the ultimate goal, while appreciating improvement
and,
4) using a method to motivate the person that works for that person, and that the person can perceive as helpful, at least in a single corner of his, or her, mind
This is, I believe, a partial answer to people who are too hard on themselves.
When there is something about yourself that you don't like, a blanket insistence that you should be better than that is usually piss-poor coaching. (Apologies for the vulgarity, it's stolen from Bruce Willis' character in Armageddon. When he is reminded that he said people had done a "bad" job, he responded "No, I said you did a piss poor job of it" (which is, in fact, what he had said). Hence, when something is not merely bad, "piss poor" has been my first choice due to the beauty of that quote.)
If you are coaching yourself well, in a way that would help you reach your goals, you would first assess what abilities you had that you used, and which ones kept you from your goal. You would want to know how good you were, rather than how good you would like to be.
Then, you would accept that, and try to find a challenging way to improve yourself in that area, while appreciating your progress, and, while using whatever methods will work, without giving in to excessive self-criticism. In at least one corner of your mind, you should always be certain that you are being helpful to yourself.
Acceptance, and understanding, of the self are the first and most important goals of this process. You need to be able to look at yourself, without delusion, without wishful thinking, without excessive positivity, and without excessive negativity. Because, you see, until you know where you are, it's extremely hard to find something that will be a challenging start to improvement.
(Now that I am thinking about it, I realize that I need to find a place to slip in a bit about not feeling guilty about honest-to-goodness limitations. Once you know yourself, and know where you are, the next step is to realize what you can change, and what you can't, so that you have an idea about how to improve. Understanding true limitations might, in fact, be what is actually the most important part of this idea. I mean, that is part of knowing yourself, but I wouldn't want to lump it in with knowing yourself, because I think it deserves a separate mention.)
Well, despite that last parenthetical comment, I think I better post this, rather than waiting until I've edited it. Experience has shown me that if I wait until it is edited, I will forget that it exists.
I think that a thought that I have been having for a while has finally started to gel.
When you're trying to teach, coach, or help in a similar manner, a person in a one-on-one situation, there are some guidelines that I think work best. However, it took a lot of text to express them...
The first guideline is that you have to accept that person as they are. If the goal is to help the person be able to run a marathon, you need to figure out how far, and how fast, that person can run right now. It doesn't matter if the person is a couch potato, or is already a very good runner, and it sure as heck doesn't matter how good the person "should" be.
None of that matters, because the point is to determine where to start training for the marathon. If you start having the person trying to run too far or to fast, you could injure them, or frustrate them, and either of these will make you a bad coach.
Now, a good coach will get a runner who is able to keep running, but not currently enjoying running, to keep running. But, there is a fine line between a good coach and a bad coach here. A bad coach will keep pushing, without taking into account where the person is right now.
Also, a good coach start at a challenging stage, because otherwise the person being coached will get bored.
There is an attitude that a good coach will bring forth in a person. Although the coach wants the person to think that current stage below the eventual goal is "not good enough", the coach wants the person to think that he, or she, will reach that goal.
So, a person being coached will have a semi-satisfied feeling of approaching a goal, while still feeling a striving to reach the goal.
A good coach doesn't make a person feel guilty for actual, honest-to-goodness limitations. Instead, the coach presents a challenge to overcome those limitations, either directly, or by using some other technique.
(There was an "After School Special" -that was the name of a series of made-for-TV movies that aired in, I suppose, the seventies - that involved a runner, and a running coach, and the runner, while he was pretty fast, didn't have much of a "kick"... he couldn't pour on the speed near the end of the race. The coach's solution was not to make him into something he wasn't; he said he didn't have much of a kick, he was going to have to get faster start. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.)
If there was someone that you could call a perfect coach, that person would be able to motivate anyone. But, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, the coach would use different methods for different people. Some people would be teased, and cajoled, and have their motivation playfully evoked. Others would be treated as if they were raw recruits in basic training. Others would receive helpful suggestions, and, who knows what other methods the person might use.
However, the important thing is, the coach would be doing something that helped motivate that person, in a way that that person could understand. Done properly, the person being coached would always have, in a corner of his, or her, mind, a realization that the coach is being helpful. (Obviously, this applies more on the coach is playing "drill sergeant" than when the coach is using a gentler method.)
Okay, so what am I suggesting is good for coaching?
1) knowing, or being able to find out, what a person's abilities are.
2) finding a challenging level on which to engage the person being coached (not too hard, and not too easy)
3) helping the person continue to strive for the ultimate goal, while appreciating improvement
and,
4) using a method to motivate the person that works for that person, and that the person can perceive as helpful, at least in a single corner of his, or her, mind
This is, I believe, a partial answer to people who are too hard on themselves.
When there is something about yourself that you don't like, a blanket insistence that you should be better than that is usually piss-poor coaching. (Apologies for the vulgarity, it's stolen from Bruce Willis' character in Armageddon. When he is reminded that he said people had done a "bad" job, he responded "No, I said you did a piss poor job of it" (which is, in fact, what he had said). Hence, when something is not merely bad, "piss poor" has been my first choice due to the beauty of that quote.)
If you are coaching yourself well, in a way that would help you reach your goals, you would first assess what abilities you had that you used, and which ones kept you from your goal. You would want to know how good you were, rather than how good you would like to be.
Then, you would accept that, and try to find a challenging way to improve yourself in that area, while appreciating your progress, and, while using whatever methods will work, without giving in to excessive self-criticism. In at least one corner of your mind, you should always be certain that you are being helpful to yourself.
Acceptance, and understanding, of the self are the first and most important goals of this process. You need to be able to look at yourself, without delusion, without wishful thinking, without excessive positivity, and without excessive negativity. Because, you see, until you know where you are, it's extremely hard to find something that will be a challenging start to improvement.
(Now that I am thinking about it, I realize that I need to find a place to slip in a bit about not feeling guilty about honest-to-goodness limitations. Once you know yourself, and know where you are, the next step is to realize what you can change, and what you can't, so that you have an idea about how to improve. Understanding true limitations might, in fact, be what is actually the most important part of this idea. I mean, that is part of knowing yourself, but I wouldn't want to lump it in with knowing yourself, because I think it deserves a separate mention.)
Well, despite that last parenthetical comment, I think I better post this, rather than waiting until I've edited it. Experience has shown me that if I wait until it is edited, I will forget that it exists.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-09 04:52 pm (UTC)(Did you compose this with the voice recognition software? There are some verbal oddities in the last two paragraphs that "sound" like they might have originated from spoken language, rather than typos).
Good to see you journaling again, dear heart.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-09 10:14 pm (UTC)And yes, everyone reading this should be alerted that there will be 'speak-os' on occasion in my journal and correspondence.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-09 10:29 pm (UTC)It does lend an ever-so-slightly more formal tone to your writing - am I correct in assuming you try to avoid conjunctions (I've, you'll) in favor of "I have" and "you will"? I can see where it might get confused ...
Never mind the quirks of the tool - your speakos are no worse than my typos, and anything that makes it easier to get the thoughts down on "paper" is a good thing, IMO.