3 ms·

As a former military jet aviator, you don't seem to a) know what you're talking about on a fundamental sense and b) be comprehending what you're being told. Th

As a former military jet aviator, you don't seem to a) know what you're talking about on a fundamental sense and b) be comprehending what you're being told. The point is the empirical evidence that those who succeed in the pipeline tend to disproportionately have athletic backgrounds, often competitive ones. Not all, but many. This is precisely because competing in elite sports is a way (not the only way, but a way) to develop everything you say you'd want next to you in a foxhole, yet which you somehow scoff at athletes being able to acquire. You frankly come off as someone with no experience in the military OR in athletics, and I say that as a former aviator who was not an elite athlete but knew some. And I've worked with SOF personnel. They may select against stereotypical "jock" behavior (though that's sometimes debatable looking at Naval Special Warfare). But they sure as hell select for very high athletic talent . . . among other things.

mmooss 2y ago
Why attack people you are talking to - unless you have little else to make your case? The value of selecting for athleticism has nothing to do with me; that topic is irrelevant. If you really can keep your head in a jet, maybe you can keep your head here. Regarding knowing what you're talking about - you have no idea about me at all. People might differ from you for other reasons than being fundementally flawed - the first is not at all a signal of the second; you are not the standard of reason. > the empirical evidence that those who succeed in the pipeline tend to disproportionately have athletic backgrounds, often competitive ones. Where could we find this evidence? That would be very interesting. I don't doubt they do select for athetic backgrounds but that's not empirical evidence that it's wise. My individual experience in playing competitive sports (pretty well, very competitive, not professionally), gambling, and also frequent experience in very high stress (professionally and otherwise) and sometimes dangerous situations: The first is no help with the latter other than blowing off steam. I wouldn't use the same word for real-life stress and the 'stress' in games, but for comparison sake: I'd say the 'stress' in sports is for children - highly simplistic situations of no consequence; like a movie; just enough 'stress' to supercharge engagement and make it interesting. The value, the conceit or trick of sports (or a good movie or song) is that you get to experience those exciting feelings without actually facing real life, you don't have to accomplish anything real but you get the endorphins and other drugs pumping. That's great, until you start believing it's real; it's a drug trip. Real-life stress is entirely different. Sports 'stress' is not nearly enough to psychologically threaten or damage or traumatize you; not enough for real fear and injury; there are no life-changing consequences for you and others based on your decision and action - do all your employees lose their livelihoods because you make the wrong decision, or because you don't thread the needle, on your feet, on 10,000 political and business and social factors and communicate effectively to the big client? College admissions tests (i.e., something with real-life consequence) are a better measure IMHO, as an example off the top of my head. I think that "supercharged engagement", those emotions, gets the better of people's judgement. Add to that the macho bias; the social trend of embracing physical violence and action, the big trend of favoring sports, and dismissing judgement, knowledge, and intellect (because the latter result in things that undermine powerful people); some groupthink ... that's where I suspect the bias (IMHO) to sports comes from.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  I'm not attacking you. I'm observing that when you say something "seems to be" the case, and then people with actual experience in the field speak up, perhaps it's your time to sit back and listen versus argue about how things "seem to be" to you.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Your GP comment did attack me and mostly focus on me - look at the very first words - not the issue, and so did the parent comment. You still aren't providing the actual contribution you promise, the evidence, nor addressing the issues on their merits. All you have is insults and criticisms of the other participants. Nobody is interested in that stuff (and it's against the guidelines). Just contribute intelligently to the issue at hand. > people with actual experience in the field Perhaps this is all about your claimed expertise - you've repeated it many times and you make a point of emphasizing it and putting down the ideas of others, as if to boost yourself higher by comparison. People here, at least, aren't going to genuflect to self-importance and aggression. If your expertise is real then you don't need to do those things. Just contribute to the discussion - of the actual issue - with dignity. Plenty of people here have expertise in the topics being discussed; they don't feel the need to bring down others.

mmooss 2y ago

Why attack people you are talking to - unless you have little else to make your case? The value of selecting for athleticism has nothing to do with me; that topic is irrelevant. If you really can keep your head in a jet, maybe you can keep your head here. Regarding knowing what you're talking about - you have no idea about me at all. People might differ from you for other reasons than being fundementally flawed - the first is not at all a signal of the second; you are not the standard of reason. > the empirical evidence that those who succeed in the pipeline tend to disproportionately have athletic backgrounds, often competitive ones. Where could we find this evidence? That would be very interesting. I don't doubt they do select for athetic backgrounds but that's not empirical evidence that it's wise. My individual experience in playing competitive sports (pretty well, very competitive, not professionally), gambling, and also frequent experience in very high stress (professionally and otherwise) and sometimes dangerous situations: The first is no help with the latter other than blowing off steam. I wouldn't use the same word for real-life stress and the 'stress' in games, but for comparison sake: I'd say the 'stress' in sports is for children - highly simplistic situations of no consequence; like a movie; just enough 'stress' to supercharge engagement and make it interesting. The value, the conceit or trick of sports (or a good movie or song) is that you get to experience those exciting feelings without actually facing real life, you don't have to accomplish anything real but you get the endorphins and other drugs pumping. That's great, until you start believing it's real; it's a drug trip. Real-life stress is entirely different. Sports 'stress' is not nearly enough to psychologically threaten or damage or traumatize you; not enough for real fear and injury; there are no life-changing consequences for you and others based on your decision and action - do all your employees lose their livelihoods because you make the wrong decision, or because you don't thread the needle, on your feet, on 10,000 political and business and social factors and communicate effectively to the big client? College admissions tests (i.e., something with real-life consequence) are a better measure IMHO, as an example off the top of my head. I think that "supercharged engagement", those emotions, gets the better of people's judgement. Add to that the macho bias; the social trend of embracing physical violence and action, the big trend of favoring sports, and dismissing judgement, knowledge, and intellect (because the latter result in things that undermine powerful people); some groupthink ... that's where I suspect the bias (IMHO) to sports comes from.

psunavy03 2y ago
I'm not attacking you. I'm observing that when you say something "seems to be" the case, and then people with actual experience in the field speak up, perhaps it's your time to sit back and listen versus argue about how things "seem to be" to you.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Your GP comment did attack me and mostly focus on me - look at the very first words - not the issue, and so did the parent comment. You still aren't providing the actual contribution you promise, the evidence, nor addressing the issues on their merits. All you have is insults and criticisms of the other participants. Nobody is interested in that stuff (and it's against the guidelines). Just contribute intelligently to the issue at hand. > people with actual experience in the field Perhaps this is all about your claimed expertise - you've repeated it many times and you make a point of emphasizing it and putting down the ideas of others, as if to boost yourself higher by comparison. People here, at least, aren't going to genuflect to self-importance and aggression. If your expertise is real then you don't need to do those things. Just contribute to the discussion - of the actual issue - with dignity. Plenty of people here have expertise in the topics being discussed; they don't feel the need to bring down others.