John's blog

We live in a country that has bought into the cult of self-esteem.  Everyone gets a participation trophy, everyone is unique snowflake.  This is a terrible way to motivate men.  Men thrive in contexts where there is an surfeit of respect, where respect must be earned through accomplishment.

In the run-up to the Super Bowl, ESPN ran an article on Bill Belichik, head coach of the New England Patriots, and how he motivates his players.  Does he do it with self-esteem?  Not exactly.  His film sessions are legendary for cutting players down to size.

The Belistrator is an equal-opportunity humiliator. He doesn't care if you are a young safety or a first-ballot Hall of Famer; if you mess up, he's going to hold you accountable.

And then he's going to degrade you.

Former linebacker Don Davis was a popular and revered figure in New England's locker room. He was a pastor who coordinated Bible study groups for the players and proved to be a tireless worker on the field and in the weight room. He even earned the offseason conditioning award.

"So there's this one play that made Don look really bad," Vrabel recalled. "Bill showed it a few times then said, 'Offseason award winner, my ass. You look like a cow on ice.' Tedy [Bruschi] and I were in the back laughing our butts off.

"Of course, it's only funny until it happens to you."

Belichick's current and former players and coaches say his vicious film critiques have been part of his motivational arsenal for as long as they can remember...

"It was very, very effective," said Brad Seely, the former Patriots and current San Francisco 49ers special teams coach. 

Belichick uses humor and humiliation in a social context to keep his players hungry.  He denies respect to athletes who have been given respect (and adulation) their entire athletic careers.  A lot of players can't deal with the loss of respect.

After Patriots rookies are handed their playbooks, if they are fortunate, a veteran will pull them aside and prep them for the devastating beatdown that each of them invariably will experience.

Most learn to take it; some never can. Those players do not last in the Patriots' organization.

"The idea is to take it personally," Bruschi said. "Bill wants you to do that. You get angry, and you get embarrassed. But then you get to the point where you want to fix it, and fix it badly."

...

Deion Branch said if you are looking for positive feedback to soothe your ego, New England is the wrong place to play. The idea, he said, is to push you to the brink, then reel you back in so "you can prove Bill wrong."

"He never compliments you," linebacker Rob Ninkovich said. "He'll throw you a little something once in a while, but it's never, 'Good job.' It's more like, 'Well, you did a little better with this.'"

This, from the most intellectual coach in football.

How else is Belichick supposed to motivate a guy like Tom Brady, who already has three Super Bowl rings, wealth, social status, and Giselle?  By denying him what everyone else gives him: respect.

Past Patriots veterans fondly remember the time Tom Brady uncharacteristically threw a weak, fluttering pass. As they left the stadium, Brady announced, "Bring the popcorn. I'll be the star of tomorrow's show." Sure enough, when the lights were dimmed and the film began rolling, there was Brady in technicolor, tossing a wounded duck up for grabs -- over and over again.

In that instance, the coach let the picture tell the story. Then he clicked on the lights and announced, "I've seen better passes thrown at Foxborough High School."

The Brady lowlights have been frequent and biting through the years. Belichick stresses the need to never leave points on the board and whenever his quarterback does, he's treated to his own personal film festival. The clips include bad reads, interceptions and poorly timed bombs, such as one in 2009, when Brady overthrew Randy Moss as he streaked toward the end zone.

"As you can see," the Belistrator pointed out, "Randy is wide open. The defense let him go. Not that we can hit him, though. Right, Tom?"

Picking on Ihedigbo is one thing; embarrassing the face of the franchise would seem to be another matter entirely.

It isn't.

"The message was always clear," Bruschi said. "No one was off limits. That's why you had to respect it."

I'm not saying this should be an exact model for other situations.  The NFL is highly competitive, all male, high testosterone, and winning requires enormous levels of teamwork from egotistical individuals who regularly change loyalties (teams).

But in a broader social context, if we teach young men that simply being alive is a ticket to self-esteem (and if sex is more or less free), don't be surprised if they aren't motivated to accomplish much.

Full article here.

Dan Lieberman recently published two new papers on running.  Here's a good Wired article summarizing the findings.  I should note that these papers aren't about barefoot running so much as forefoot and rearfoot striking, plus minimalist footwear in the first paper.

I was a data point in the first study, Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy.  It was fun.  They hooked me up to a breathing tube to measure my oxygen usage, which took a little getting used to.  I had to run with a forefoot strike in VFFs as well as conventional sneakers, and then do the same with a rear-foot strike.  Let me tell you, it's seriously unpleasant to run with a rearfoot strike in minimal shoes.

Here are the results and conslusions:

RESULTS: After controlling for stride frequency and shoe mass, runners were 2.41% more economical in the minimal shoe condition when forefoot striking and 3.32% more economical in the minimal shoe condition when rearfoot striking (p<0.05). In contrast, forefoot and rearfoot striking did not differ significantly in cost for either minimal or standard shoe running. Arch strain was not measured in shoes condition but was significantly greater during forefoot than rearfoot striking when barefoot. Plantarflexor force output was significantly higher in forefoot than rearfoot striking, and in barefoot than shod running. Achilles tendon-triceps surae strain and knee flexion were also lower in barefoot than standard shoe running.

The second study is even more compelling: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study.  Lieberman has been collecting data on the Harvard cross country team for years.

RESULTS: Of the 52 runners studied, 36 (59%) primarily used a rearfoot strike and 16 (31%) primarily used a forefoot strike. Approximately 74% of runners experienced a moderate or severe injury each year, but those who habitually rearfoot strike had approximately twice the rate of repetitive stress injuries than individuals who habitually forefoot strike. Traumatic injury rates were not significantly different between the two groups. A generalized linear model showed that strike type, sex, race distance, and average miles per week each correlate significantly (p<0.01) with repetitive injury rates.

CONCLUSIONS: Competitive cross country runners on a college team incur high injury rates, but runners who habitually rearfoot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly forefoot strike. This study does not test the causal bases for this general difference. One hypothesis, which requires further research, is that the absence of a marked impact peak in the ground reaction force during a forefoot strike compared to a rearfoot strike may contribute to lower rates of injuries in habitual forefoot strikers.

A 2X difference in injury rates?  That's HUGE.  It's only a matter of time until all collegiate cross country programs teach their athletes how to run properly, with a forefoot strike.

This was one of the most epic matches in tennis history. 

MELBOURNE, Australia -- Novak Djokovic ripped off his shirt and let out a primal scream, flexing his torso the way a prize fighter would after a desperate, last-round knockout.

This was the final act in Djokovic's 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 victory over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final -- a sweat-drenched, sneaker-squeaking 5 hour, 53-minute endurance contest that ended at 1:37 a.m. Monday morning in Melbourne.

Djokovic overcame a break in the fifth set to win his fifth Grand Slam tournament and third in a row. None, though, quite like this.

This one involved tears, sweat and, yes, even a little blood. It was the longest Grand Slam singles final in the history of pro tennis and it came against Nadal, the player who built a career on his tenacity -- on outlasting opponents in matches like these.

Conditioning matters.  Here's the article.

Here's a five-minute recap of the match.

A number of African endangered species are now thriving in Texas -- for hunting.  Of course, this drives animal rights activists wild -- who as you'll see, don't use logic, and would rather see species die out than be hunted.  By lobbying federal bureaucracies, these ideological radicals are getting rule changes to disallow hunting of certain species without a federal permit, which will be difficult to obtain and which inevitably will lead to the decline of these endangered animals.

60 Minutes reports:

Let's me be as clear as day: radical animal rights activists are the enemy.

Link via Alex Tabarrok.

I received the following frantic texts tonight from Female Roommate B:

• Come home now! There is blood everywhere
• Another mouse is on the loose
• Female Roommate A has to clear the drain
• And the mouse is squealing!

Oh, to be needed as a man.

I returned home to find that Female Roommate A had not only cleared the drain (I was impressed -- she hates doing it), but also had seen a mouse and scared it towards a sticky trap, where it got caught.  She awarded herself multiple Hero Points.  I very much agreed (though I think we may reduce it just to one since clearing the drain isn't worth a Hero Point).  Regardless, she had kind of contradicted my earlier post about living with women, which is probably worth a Hero Point in its own right.  And they both swore they hadn't read the post.

Anyhow, the mouse was still perfectly well alive, squirming on the trap.  I pulled it out from under the fridge, and prepared to stomp on it with my shoe.  Female Roommate B, a vegetarian, started screaming and pleading for mercy.  None was granted, particularly with a Hero Point on the line.

The blood referenced in the text message was from pomegranate seeds that had been spilled.  It wasn't actual blood.

We have fun.

My hometown Detroit Tigers just signed Prince Fielder to a nine-year, $214 million contract.  Short-term, I'm excited because this keeps the Tigers in championship contention.  Long-term, I'm worried because this is an enormous contract to swallow -- fourth all-time, only smaller than A-Rod's two contracts and Albert Pujols' contract this year.

Oh yeah, and there's just one more long-term problem: Prince Fielder is a vegetarian.  Here is Fielder's Wikipedia entry:

"Prior to the 2008 season Fielder became a vegetarian, removing meat and fish from his diet. Fielder made this choice after reading Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, given to him by his wife Chanel."

Prince Fielder is no skinny bitch.  He's got weight issues.  Back in 2008, the NYT reported that he was 5'11'' and he tipped the scales at 270 pounds.  Long-time readers may remember that the majority of the most highlighted passages in Skinny Bitch are ways to eat sugar or processed food.  Apparently, he's taken the book to heart.  All this means he's going to age faster.  His production is going to drop sooner.  And his recovery from injuries will be slower.  I'll have to see what I can do to get him eating better.

A personal memory: I once struck out Prince Fielder in Little League.  I think I was 10 years old.

When his father, Cecil, played for the Tigers, Prince played a year of local ball before either moving or joining a travel team.  He could hit anything.  It didn't matter whether it was in the strike zone or not.  I wouldn't be surprised if his OBP was above .700.  Another time I was playing catcher and we intentionally walked him.  In Little League, there just aren't very many intentional walks -- it's considered pretty bad form.  He was that good.  Below is a local McDonald's ad that he appeared in long before his vegetarian days.

Anyhow, I wish him the best.  Go Tigers!

Andrew over at Evolvify has a post up on The Pick-Up Artists' Alpha-Male Narrative Myth.  He doesn't like when people use an evolutionary just-so story to justify modern behavior, particularly pick-up artists:

Here’s where I do object: The hackneyed use of evolutionary psychology and pop-paleoanthropology to craft narratives of our evolutionary past, then use them to justify behaviors or strategies. Among PUAs, this is commonly manifested in a narrative that goes something like: “Humans evolved emotional responses that influence attraction in the paleolithic. During this period of human evolution, we lived in tribes. Because of the protective advantages, resource advantages, and social advantages of tribal leaders, women evolved an attraction to tribal leaders, a.k.a. alpha-males. Therefore, men should act like alpha males to attract women.”

Thankfully, I don't appear to have run afoul of this problem in my posts on masculinity:

Side Note: Lately, John Durant of hunter-gatherer.com has been writing about sorta similar things in the context of masculinity. While John’s recent posts have reminded me of my intent to write about this subject, I haven’t seen him construct this narrative. So… unless I missed something, the timing of this post is mostly a coincidence.

Andrew then points out that hunter-gatherer tribes tend not to be hierarchical (his emphasis):

There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago. To the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death (Boehm 1999).  Yes, that’s basically saying that alpha males got offed by their social group — not exactly a benefit to reproduction.

And then he points to intelligence and humor being traits that may have been better strategies.

First, as I've written before On (Sexual) Inequality, hunter-gatherers weren't egalitarian when it came to Darwinian success:

Keep in mind that based on various genetic analyses, we now know that about 40% of past men left behind modern descendants, whereas 80% of past women have [see statistical note below].  Our hunter-gatherer ancestors may have been egalitarian in many respects, but when it came to reproductive success, they were anything but egalitarian.

It is a fact that a wider group of women and a much smaller group of men dominated the human gene pool.  The men at the top of that sexual hierarchy are, by definition, alpha males.  If you don't want to call that a hierarchy, then fine -- but that doesn't change the fact that there is quite a bit of inequality in the historical reproductive outcomes of men.

Second, whatever strategies those alpha males did to successfully reproduce, are, by definition, dominance strategies.

The following are all dominance strategies: height, intelligence, humor, athletic prowess, health, kindness, creativity, wealth, status, violence, deception, honesty, and more.

The word "dominance" sounds violent, but violence isn't the only way to dominate other people, which is a mistake that a lot of critics of masculinity (or game) make.  They reduce "alpha" to a series of chest-beating exercises, which is absurd.  In fact, if you actually read any of these game blogs, none of them that I've ever seen recommend that a good way to achieve dominance is by getting into a fight with a rival male.  They tend to emphasize things like good story-telling, confidence, and body language.

Let's be clear: intelligence is a dominance strategy.  It is a way to dominate people.  Intelligent people find ways to get other people to do what they want.  Same with humor.  Just because these aren't violent doesn't mean they aren't about social dominance.

Third, even using a stereotypical view of "alpha dominance" (violence), it seems like violence was a sound reproductive strategy in a typical hunter-gatherer tribe.

Hunter-gatherer tribes tended to be quite violent.  See Pinker's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.  Regardless of whether there was an explicit dominance hierarchy within the tribe, there sure as hell was a lot of violence, particularly inter-tribal violence.  So even if there was no Big Man in an internally-egalitarian tribe, being violent could have been selected for as a sexually desirable trait due to warring with other tribes.

Additionally, hunter-gatherer men are quite violent towards animals.  It's called hunting.  There's tons of evidence that the greatest warriors and hunters got more girlfriends.  Needless to say, inter-personal violence will get you thrown in jail today.

Fourth, sexual selection can happen very quickly, and the hierarchical agricultural era may have left its mark on us. 

When behaviors are closely related to sexual reproduction, evolution happens fast.  Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if the agricultural era left its imprint on human sexuality more than on human diet.  See Khan, Ghengis.

Overall, I agree with Andrew's caution towards just-so stories.  However, dominance and inequality are deeply-rooted parts of human nature, particularly male human nature, even if hunter-gatherer tribes appeared egalitarian.

Alpha males existed.  They were not "offed by their social group".  And in fact, we are disproportionately descended from them -- and the women who had sex with them.

----------

Statistical Note: As I've done more research, the fact is that women were twice as likely to have left descendants than men.  So it could have been that 70% of women and 35% of men left modern descendants, not necessarily 80% and 40%.  Here is the highly-technical original paper: Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males.

If anyone doubts the power of an alpha response in the age of television, look no further than Newt Gingrich's opening salvo the other night.  It single-handedly won him South Carolina and revitalized his presidential campaign.

Let's analyze Gingrich's moment in light of what I recently wrote about the beta response of Michael Dukakis as well as the alpha response of Ronald Reagan during the New Hampshire debate.

Step 1: Acknowledge the challenge.  If you pretend that you haven't been challenged, but everyone else knows you have been, then not responding is a sign of submission and admission of defeat.  Therefore, you must acknowledge the challenge: clenched jaw, red face, flared nostrils, hands clenched or gripping the podium, leaning forward, gaze locked directly on the questioner.

Newt's confrontational and succinct response to whether he wanted to address the issue: "No.  But I will."

Create a moment of silence -- to allow fear to build and to give the challenger time to reconsider his challenge before the situation turns violent.  Grow larger in stature, puff out your chest, stand taller.

Newt was silent as the crowd roared, letting the tension build since everyone knew he was about to lay into CNN anchor John King.

Step 2: Growl.  Be loud, bellow, growl.  In a presidential debate, this would mean raising your voice and saying something to the effect of "How dare you ask a question like that.  Shame on you."

Newt chastised King: "...and I am appalled that you would begin a Presidential debate on a topic like that."

Use a deeper voice than you would normally use.  Point directly at the questioner.  Gesture forcefully.  Given this context, the questioner would probably be apologizing by now.  Physically, this would entail his voice getting softer and higher, and he would probably hold up his hands, palms open (both exposing his underbelly and unclenching his fists) in an instinctive attempt to indicate submission and that he didn't actually want to fight.

Take a look at 1:45, where John King tries to pass the question off on ABC.  Gingrich will have none of it, and yes, John King holds up his hands, palms open, while Gingrich gestures forcefully.

Step 3: Assert dominance.

Gingrich denies the allegations and slams the media: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

Compare with Romney's worst answer of the night, as to whether he would release his tax returns: Maybe.  Are you kidding me?  Go strong "No" or strong "Yes", but the most beta possible answer is a weak "Maybe".

Republicans want a fighter.  And whether voters are informed about the issues or not, they have millions of years of hard-wiring informing them which guy on stage is socially dominant.  During this debate, it was Newt Gingrich.