Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

As a junior varsity high school tennis coach I tell the players that they should look at losing matches as an opportunity to learn what they can do to improve their game. (I tell myself that too when I play tennis matches.) If the players can learn from losses they still win in the long run even though they lost the latest match. (I’d also say they can also learn from wins by looking at what they can improve. I do this by keeping a journal in which I rate whether I improved in technique, tactics and mental parts of my game and rate what needs to be improved.)

The Science Daily article links to a paper titled The Eight Five Percent Rule for optimal learning that is fairly technical. The Science Daily article summarizes:

Educators and educational scholars have long recognized that there is something of a "sweet spot" when it comes to learning. That is, we learn best when we are challenged to grasp something just outside the bounds of our existing knowledge. When a challenge is too simple, we don't learn anything new; likewise, we don't enhance our knowledge when a challenge is so difficult that we fail entirely or give up.

So where does the sweet spot lie? According to the new study, to be published in the journal Nature Communications, it's when failure occurs 15% of the time. Put another way, it's when the right answer is given 85% of the time.

So we optimize our learning if we fail about one out of six times. Good to know!

I believe these results parallel what it takes to achieve a state of mind that is called Flow, a concept identified by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a Hungarian-American psychologist. The Wikipedia entry describes flow as “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.”

I say that there is a connection between optimal learning and flow because achieving a flow state requires facing a task that challenges you without being daunting. The Positive Psychology website explains: “an optimal Flow state was created when people tackled challenges that they perceived to be at just the right level of ‘stretch’ for their skill sets. In other words, neither too tough nor too easy as to be boring.”

Putting together the findings on optimal learning and flow it appears that both need a “Goldilocks” challenge: one that stretches you to achieve flow and reveals what you need to improve for the next time.

Lessons from the NFL AFC Championship

-->

I know many people outside of New England are tired of seeing the New England Patriots playing in the Super Bowl. There are a lot of reasons why the Pats dominate so much but I believe we can apply a couple things Tom Brady said in the post-game interview of the 2019 NFL’s AFC Championship (in which the New England Patriots beat the Kansas City Chiefs 37-31). We can apply these ideas not just to sports but how we live. I’ve provided his response to a reporter’s question with key words in bold.

Q: How do you stay so calm in the biggest moments, especially when your team is down and you have to drive the team right back?

BRADY: “Part of playing sports is just staying in the moment. We always say one play at a time and you can’t make up for things that happen in the past. You just have to think about what you are going to do moving forward. Start of the fourth quarter, they scored. We are up three to start the fourth quarter. What a great opportunity to be against this team and to be ahead three in the fourth quarter with a chance to win is pretty sweet. They blew so many teams out this year. It is just a great opportunity for us, and we took advantage of it.”

His first point, staying in the moment, is key. I’ve seen players and teams get desperate or angry when losing or when calls go against them then try for plays or shots that aren’t part of their normal repertoire. They’re upset about what just happened then try to make up for it by hitting the ball harder or going for shots they don’t “own.” For instance, in tennis (the sport with which I’m most familiar because I play it almost daily) I’ve seen players go for a shot or an angle that they normally wouldn’t try if they were ahead. Instead, they often end up making an unforced error, which only makes things worse. (I know because I’ve done it!) 

As Brady says it’s better to forget about past mistakes or calls that go against you and focus on two things: stay in the moment while thinking of what you’re going to do next. One tip I use in tennis after making a mistake is to tell myself, “Next time” while making a couple shadow swings on how I wanted to hit the shot that I just missed. “Next time” means I’m telling myself I’ll do it better the next time I have the chance. This attitude implicitly represents a focus on the process rather than the results. It also reflects their confidence in themselves. And, it also means that their self-esteem isn’t tied to the outcome. Sure, it doesn’t feel good to lose but someone like Brady or Federer just use the loss as motivation to learn from what happened and try to improve. (This also reflects something I’ve written about in a previous post: the difference between having a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.)

Later Brady said that the Pats had a “great opportunity” when starting the fourth quarter with a three point lead over a team that was seeded #1 and had beaten other teams by large margins. I find it interesting that he didn’t say it was a challenge or that they were nervous. This is one of the qualities I’ve noticed with champions like the Brady, the Patriots or, switching to tennis again, Roger Federer. They are unflappable.  They see facing a tough opponent as an opportunity to excel rather than a challenge for which they might not be good enough.

So what accounts for this calmness? I’d say these factors: focus on the present, confidence in yourself without tying the outcome to your self-esteem and a process-oriented mentality. 

The real Super Bowl lesson wasn’t about revenge - The Boston Globe

The real Super Bowl lesson wasn’t about revenge - The Boston Globe

This article nicely captures my feelings about the New England Patriots' incredible come-from-behind win over the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI. As a Pats fan it was sweet to have them win despite Brady's suspension for the first four games of the season due to allegations that the Pats lowered the pressure in their footballs.

But the satisfaction of getting this win (with properly inflated balls) pales to the spectacle of watching the Patriots methodically, relentlessly and calmly chipping away at the Falcons' lead. Meanwhile the Atlanta team could have easily added a field goal to put the game even further out of reach but succumbed to some head-scratching decisions. There easily were half a dozen or more plays that would have thwarted the Pats' comeback if any one of them had not worked in the Pats favor. 

It seems that everything is politicized these days. We know that Robert Kraft (the team owner), Bill Belichick (head coach) and Tom Brady (quarterback) are Trump supporters. We know that some of the players have said they will not attend the team meeting at the White House for political reasons. Yet it's great to see that both sides could set aside these differences (at least publicly) to work toward a common goal.

It was as if everything our parents, our teachers, our coaches had tried to teach us transpired in the last 18 minutes of this magnificent spectacle, this Super Bowl. In the end, it wasn’t about revenge. It was about not giving up, about perseverance, about not panicking, about having a backup plan if the original plan isn’t working, about believing in yourself and your ability and in one another.

... 

The roots of the comeback were embedded in another of our parents’ mantras: that you lay the groundwork for success in ways you often can’t see, simply by persevering. Even after they had fallen behind by so much, the Patriots were controlling possession and running the Falcons defense ragged. In the fourth quarter, and especially during the winning drive in overtime, the Atlanta defenders were gassed, exhausted. 

...

So many of us had assumed that Tom Brady wanted to win this game so he could rub it in Goodell’s face. But it turns out he really wanted to win the game to put a smile on his mother’s face. There’s something much stronger, sweeter, and more satisfying than revenge. It’s called love.

Resilence and Choking: Federer vs. Cilic Wimbledon Match

Yesterday Roger Federer narrowly avoided being eliminated from Wimbledon at the hands of Marin Cilic. He was down two sets to none and even had a couple match points against him. Yet he prevailed. We think that Roger has nerves of steel and therefore never chokes but he did shank several balls, revealing that, yes, even Roger is human. In fact, I read a book on Federer recently that reveals he was very temperamental as a junior player. He had temper tantrums that made John McEnroe look mild. If he lost a match he would cry and pout for a while afterwards. Roger made a conscious decision to change his ways and become more Stoic.

This post by Allen Fox talks about how Roger handled choking by not panicking.

I should add that if there was anything to learn from this match it was that you can choke and still win as long as you don’t get rattled about it. And the topic of “courage” comes up when people think about choking. In my opinion, it doesn’t show courage to not be nervous and make the big shot on the big point. It takes courage to choke on the big point, not get upset about it; fight your way to another big point; and finally come through, either by making a good shot or your opponent missing.

Fox's point can apply to other situations beyond sports. That it's OK to tighten up under pressure as long as you recognize it and keep trying to do your best.
 

Late To The Ball: Tennis and Relationships

I just finished reading Late To The Ball by Gerald Marzorati, a former editor of the New York Times Magazine, in which he tells his story about taking up tennis in his early 60s and the lessons he learned, both in terms of technique/tactics and lessons about himself. I liked his book (and the clever title) very much. He started playing singles competitively but toward the end of the book he shifted to play doubles. He quotes an email from his wife on the differences between singles and doubles that I like.

“Singles is a fearsome struggle for independence at best; at worst it is a denial of the other’s humanity. But doubles is different. A devoted team can help each other grow so much. You’re talking about fellowship, and the delicate, intricate, wondrous balance between autonomy and dependency.”

I think her description of the dynamics of doubles actually applies to relationships in general whether it’s friendships, family or marriages.

I also think her depiction of singles is a bit harsh. I’m sure many people who play competitive singles do indeed want to impose their will on their opponent. I lean more toward Tim Gallwey’s idea that a goal of playing tennis, whether it’s singles or doubles, is to bring out the best in yourself. To do that you need the best from your opponent. Therefore playing ultimately is a cooperative exercise. I figure if you’re playing on the professional circuit your goal is strictly to win, rise in the rankings and make enough money to survive, without being concerned how your opponent feels about losing. The same for playing in USTA amateur leagues and tournaments. Yet, I noticed at the very top of the pro ranks (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray) there is mutual respect and appreciation for a well-played match. Even in the mixed doubles USTA matches I played this winter (for the first time in my tennis career at the age of 65!), there usually is mutual respect. Most of my opponents were fair and friendly. A few resorted to gamesmanship in an attempt to get into my head. (Good luck finding anything in there!) But overall all four of us on the court were looking for a competitive, well-fought match.

Getting back to Marzorati book, you could also take the title to mean arriving late to a ball as in a formal dance party. Whether or not this double meaning was intentional I’d say the second meaning of the “ball” is appropriate too. Playing tennis can be thought of as a dance.

Why Try Outs Are Making Your Team Worse from A Coaching Life blog

Came across this blog while reading one of the coaching forums. Has an interesting approach.

http://acoachinglife.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/why-try-outs-are-making-your-team-worse/

Observations from Refereeing

On a Massachusetts soccer forum one poster asked why many games in Massachusetts Premier League (MAPLE) don’t have three officials. This spurred a number of posts by referees who shared their horror stories dealing with abusive parents and coaches. It is well known that there is a high turn over in referees. From talking to various people the biggest drop-off seems to be among the teenagers because of having to deal with adults who challenge them. For many teens this is intimating and even scary.

I got my Grade 8 referee license last spring and have done recreational games (Division 2 and 3) in my town, Massachusetts Soccer conference (MASC) games and even a MAPLE game recently. A week ago I worked the lines for a boys U14 MASC game in which one team was constantly pushing offside. Almost every time I flagged the team for it I could see a parent vigorously and vocally disagreeing with my calls. The center ref (who is much more experienced than me) agreed with me when we discussed my calls after the game. I can see why there is shortage of referees based on my experience.

So why are adults so vocal? Why do they feel they have the right to heap abuse on officials? Her are some ideas.

1. People (not just parents but coaches too) think it’s easy to referee. One coach said as much months ago in another thread on refereeing on the Touchline forum. In my opinion if you feel that way then you’re not doing it right and/or don’t understand the challenges of doing the job properly! I’m sure someone who has never actually stepped onto the pitch to referee (or play) look at the referee’s job as simply running around. They don’t appreciate that even under ideal conditions the referee has to make decisions quickly and on the fly. I’ve found that running the lines is even more challenging than being the center referee because you’ve got to stay in line with the last defender while keeping an eye on the ball and when it is played forward. In addition you’ve calling out-of-bounds, who takes the throw-in and looking for fouls.
2. Many parents don’t understand the laws of the game, particularly offside.
3. The focus on winning and losing regardless of the age or league. This is especially true in MAPLE where one goal can spell doom for a team’s future within MAPLE. So a perceived “missed” call by the parents, players or coach can escalate when so much is at stake. Yet we have also seen some outrageous behavior in MASC, even at the U10 level (!) where last year a parent was banned for the season because of extreme, continued harassment of the official even after the game.

As a coach of both town and premier girls’ teams from U12 through U18 my focus has been more on playing well and doing your best than on winning and losing. Why? Because you can’t control the outcome but you can control your effort. My message to my players is that as long as you play hard, play smart, play as a team and play fairly that you can walk off the field with pride even if you lose. Unfortunately some parents seem to live vicariously through their kids and feel winning at all costs is more important than the level of effort and thought.

But I think there is something else going on here. I think a collection of beliefs at work.

1. That a “bad” call “steals” success from their child.
2. Winning and preserving their kid’s success (the ends) justifies harassing the referee (the means).
3. Treating others without respect and as objects is OK as long as your ends are served.

The combination of these beliefs falls into the trap of believing that of blaming others for lack of success. There is even a whiff of the idea that parents and their kids are entitled to the results they want even if it might really not be deserved.

Running up the score or running down the competition? To What End?

This week the girls U12 club team that I co-coach easily won an indoor game against a local town team. When we jumped ahead by 4 goals we told the girls that they had to string at least 3 passes together before shooting on goal, that they had to use their moves and that shots had to be with their left foot (if their right foot is the dominant one). I have been involved in games where we were on the receiving end of mismatches. It's no fun for the losing team and I believe it doesn't teach the players on the winning team anything. Mercilessly running up the score also is poor sportsmanship, shows a lack of respect for the opponent and can let the girls slip into complacency so that they're caught off guard when they play a stronger team down the road. (I especially love the teams that celebrate every goal in a drub fest as if they just won the World Cup while their parents are ringing cowbells. Geesh! Get a life!)

Since the opposing team was not creating enough pressure on us (in other words, they were “ball watching”) we imposed conditions on the girls to make the game more challenging for them without disrespecting the other team. We explained to the parents in a team e-mail that we felt it was a good time for the girls to work on what we have been teaching them in practice: when you run into pressure you relieve this pressure by moving the ball elsewhere by a combination of back and square passes then moving into areas with less pressure before the defense can adjust. The natural tendency of players is to plow straight down the field until they run into the defense or run out of space then lose the ball (which is the approach you'll see in some other programs). Taking this “kick and run” approach creates ugly soccer with frequent turnovers and lost scoring chances. We would prefer the girls to possess the ball until they can penetrate the defense with through passes, wall passes or crosses. Playing this way also involves our keeper in the play as well. But, most important, this way of playing the game is more attractive to watch and is effective at all levels of competition.

I’ve heard coaches for the team that relish running up the score claim that they let their players do so because they don’t know what else to do, that it’s too hard to turn off the competitiveness, and that their players shouldn’t have to pull in their reins. While this might be true for professional sports where coaches and players are paid to win, I don’t accept this at the youth level. (Even in the premier league in Massachusetts the standings limit the goal differential of a win so that winning by more than 5 goals doesn’t help in the final standings.) I believe this rationale is an excuse that feeds the coach’s and player’s egos. In other words, it’s a rationalization for poor sportsmanship and for treating the opponents as objects, as something less than human. I feel the purpose of competition is to test and expand your limits. If the opposition can’t provide enough resistance to challenge you, I believe it’s better for everyone to impose conditions on yourself to make the game harder and therefore more rewarding.

There also is the issue of empathy for what your opponent experiences. Easily and gleefully crushing a team can demoralize the opponents. What is to be gained doing so? A false inflation of one’s self-worth at the expense of someone else? A person who has a strong self-image doesn’t rely on making others feel bad in order to improve how they feel about themselves.

Playing Time

Playing time pops up occassionally in the different coaching forums that I monitor. Over the years of coaching both in town and club (in MAPLE and MASC) I’ve tried to make sure everyone plays as evenly as possible. Everyone doesn’t necessarily play equal number of minutes primarily due to how many players I might have for each position. However, I don’t have players who are parked on the bench for long periods of time. While I don’t track playing time down to the minute I do have line ups and general sub patterns worked out before the game. My lineups are fairly flexible to account for injuries, last minute illnesses, etc. Maybe I’m wrong but my hunch is that many club coaches feel that giving equal playing time is “kumbaya” soccer. Over the years I’ve heard stories from parents whose daughters played in other clubs but left or quit entirely due to lack of playing time. Several years ago at a Virginia Beach tournament I talked to a coach from a large Massachusetts club who proudly told me that he had 11 starters who came off the field only if they were running out of gas, made a major mistake or were injured. The others rode the pine and maybe got a few minutes a game. He told his players that if they found themselves sitting on the bench it was their signal to look for another club.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach because I feel the best way to test and strengthen players is in the heat of competition. Several years ago I read Andy Barney’s “Training Soccer Legends" in which he explains the philosophy and training methods of the Kansas City Legends Club (which he founded). Barney (USSF “A” license) outlines a number of things he does in training that differs from the traditional approach to coaching (no bibs, players have to take on defenders on every possession, only 1v1 and 2v2 play at the younger ages) but he also does not dole out playing time just to his better players. Chapter 48 of his book is titled “Equal Time = High Self-Concept = Maximum Potential.” He gives all players equal time. Why? Here is a lengthy quote that explains.

It takes tremendous courage to commit to an equal playing time approach in every game. Yet this is the only way to ensure that both your better and weaker players learn the right lessons for life from their youth soccer career. The weaker players learn they are valued by you and will take greater risks with the ball in the knowledge that they won’t be punished with reduced minutes. Often the weaker players on your squad, (who may have dropped out of soccer because of reduced playing time on other teams), will become your stronger players as they mature because of your fairness and support for costly creative risks while they are learning. By playing all players evenly you let everyone know that you believe in them and care only for their development, not the wins and losses for the gratification of your own ego. The stronger players, (who would get more playing time on any other team), learn the more valuable lesson that every child is part of a team and makes a solid commitment, should be given equal opportunity to learn and develop. There’s plenty of time later in life for the ‘only the strong survive’ approach. In all youth educational environments equality of educational opportunity is a child’s right. Taking away a young person’s chance to learn and grow because that player is not as effective at that development stage sends the wrong message to both the better and the weaker players. The weaker players get the message that they’re not as valuable and, because they get less than fair playing time, the negative message and reduced minutes eventually guarantee their demise. Players receiving less time cannot feel as good as those receiving more. In the meantime the stronger players learn the cynical attitude that it’s OK to cheat a teammate just as long as the team wins.

[Picking up a few paragraphs later.] I am of the opinion that all kids deserve equal playing opportunity for education. … I would encourage the readers of this book to see the unequal playing time proponents for who they are. These people are individuals who regard the win as more important than the self-concept of the bench sitter or non-starter. If we are honest with ourselves an unequal playing time policy isn’t about development of the stronger player. It is about getting the statistical win on the board at the end of the game and the coach being able to walk away and beat his chest about the win.

Barney claims that he selects the most respected parent to do the subbing and to keep track of the rotation of starters between games.

It appears his approach works. Their web site lists the accomplishments of this club, which includes 257 state, 18 regional, and 3 national ODP players, plus 24 professional players while winning 48 state championships, etc. http://www.kclegendssoccer.com/content/accomplishments.cfm

I’m not saying one way of handling playing time is “right” and another way is “wrong.” It comes down which business model the club wants to follow and which approach fits the players and parents plans. It seems that there are two basic approaches: 1. build teams with the focus on winning even if it means some players see limited or no playing time, or 2. focus on developing players which could mean the team loses games due to the weaker players. As long as the club and coach explains to their paying customers the ground rules for playing time, the parents shouldn’t complain if they find their child not playing as much as they’d like. It appears that there are enough clubs representing both philosophies that parents and player can find a fit to their liking.

Anyway, food for thought.

The Benefits of Competition and Sportsmanship

Recently I watched the movie Blue Crush (Widescreen Collector's Edition) with my twin teenage daughters. Blue Crush tells the story of a young lady surfer who wants to compete in an upcoming national event. However, she has to fight her own fears because of a previous surfing accident. Naturally, the plot follows the formula of almost all sports movies. Blue Crush is not a great movie but it’s not bad either. The conclusion of the movie takes a slight detour from the usual. The heroine, Ann Marie, makes it through the first round when her competitor wipes out on a massive wave. (The film takes place in Hawaii where the famous Banzai Pipeline is the scene of major competitions. I visited the Pipeline a long time ago and was impressed by the ferocity of the waves. The movie also uses professional women surfers for the final competition scene including Keala Kennelly.)

In her first heat Ann Marie takes a spill right after her competitor falls and has to leave the competition with a back injury. Ann Marie’s ankle leash gets caught on the reef so that she in unable to reach the surface until she can release the leash. Ann Marie gets to move to the second heat because her opponent can’t proceed but she doesn’t want to go out on the water again. Her romantic interest, an NFL quarterback, stops by the medical tent to check on her. He starts to tell a story how he was blindsided and drilled. She says, “So you got back into the game and won it, right?” He says that his coach talks him into going back in, does not win the game, gets pounded some more but he vividly remembers a perfect touchdown pass. Ann Marie decides to go back in, against Keala Kennelly.

In Ann Marie’s first attempt she wipes out then gets pounded by a series of waves. When she returns for her final attempt Kennelly tells Ann Marie to follow her to a place where the waves break better, tells her which wave to catch then cheers on Ann Marie as she takes the ride of her life and gets a perfect score from the judges. Her score is not enough to overtake Kennelly but Ann Marie doesn’t care because she overcame her fears and rode the wave perfectly. Kennelly gives her a high five afterwards. One of the cameramen watching Ann Marie celebrating her performance with her family and friends asks a colleague, "Doesn’t she realize she lost?”

So why does this sequence stand out for me? I think it points to several key points about competition that are important to relay to the kids we coach.

1. Competing against a strong rival can bring out your best. Speaking from experience, I know that playing tennis against an opponent who is equal or better than me gets more out of me than if I was just working off a backboard or against a weaker player.
2. Which leads to the fact that competition can be a form of collaboration if both participants share this spirit. They recognize that hard competition can bring out the best in each other. This is why Kennelly cheers on Ann Marie. In essence she is saying, “If you’re going to beat me, do it with your best stuff.” This is where Blue Crush avoids presenting the adversary as evil or nasty.
3. Winning isn’t everything, but trying to win is. (According to books I’ve read recently Vince Lombardi actually said this, not “Winning is the only thing.”) There is no shame in losing as long as you try your best.
4. If you have a strong self-esteem then losing to a worthy opponent does not threaten how you feel about yourself. Losing might not be fun and you might feel miserable for a while, especially if you did not perform up to your standards, but it should not lead to resorting to cheating to get the win.