"The best players usually aren't the best teachers, while..."

[charlie cho]

I never understood this dynamic. Yes, Michael Jordan was never and will never be a good coach or GM of a basketball team even though he may have been the greatest player to ever play the game. Yet, we see Phil Jackson and Steve Kerr, two of the most mediocre players in the NBA, become the greatest coaches of all time. 

But I can't understand this dynamic...

It's obvious, if you don't understand a concept, you can never teach it. If you don't know something, you can't teach that something. 

For example, only Buddha Siddhartha can teach about enlightenment. I can't teach it, because I've never been enlightened. I can't teach soccer because I never played it before. Messi would obviously teach it better than me. 

It aches my brain.... 

[Michael Jackson]

Being a coach simply requires a different set of skills than being a good player.

[Carl-Richard]

Somebody had to teach Michael Schumacher how to drive a car. Somebody had to teach B.B. King the blues scale. 

Theory and strategy is different than practice and embodied movement.

[lostingenosmaze]

People like Michael Jordan are good as they are because they prioritze mastery over teaching.

[zurew]

Teaching requires understanding and knowledge, but it doesn't require embodyment. 

Being good at something won't automatically mean, that you will be able to teach it well. Why? Because you have had a unique structure and you figured out a good way how to use your structure, but you won't necessarily will be able to adapt your knowledge to other people's structures.

However, if you have the ability to think in other people's structures, at the same time you have a lot of knowledge about a field (conceptually), then you can help people with different structures to apply your knowledge.

Having an embodyment is not necessary, but it can be a plus when it comes to teaching.

Edited May 14, 2022 by zurew

[ZzzleepingBear]

You are talking about a sports team effort. Each player has their role and position to keep in mind prior to anything else.  A coach needs to have a greater overview of all the players and inform everyone what they should prioritize to do in their respective role. So a coach can't be the greatest player in all those different roles him/her self. Just as someone who are put in a position to score the goals, may be a terrible goal keeper and vice versa.

[charlie cho]

@Carl-Richard that's what I've been thinking recently. So, theory/strategy and the mental aspect of it has to be understood by the coach, no? 

Just because someone has great coaching skills (I mean: skill of teaching and coaching in itself contrary to having any expertise on any discipline) this does not mean he has the right or any competence to teach any subject.

Great coach (of the said discipline) = coaching skills (for any discipline) + thorough understanding of strategy/theory (of the said discipline)

Great coach (of the said discipline) =/= coaching skills (for any discipline) 

Great coach (of the said discipline =/= thorough understanding of strategy/theory (of the said discipline) 

What do you think of this? 

[charlie cho]

@zurew Is there a difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment of the concept? I understand what you are saying, but

I've always thought embodiment = learning, not otherwise. Therefore, the one who has embodied the concept a step further in his conceptual understanding than the one who had just "understood" the concept. In other words:

embodiment of concept > knowing (or how many say "understanding") of the concept 

I talk about this because people say we don't need embodiment to understand or strategize the concept, but it's hard to agree to this statement. What is the difference between understanding and embodiment? There is none, to me.

 

[zurew]

2 hours ago, charlie cho said:

Is there a difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment of the concept? I understand what you are saying, but

I've always thought embodiment = learning, not otherwise. Therefore, the one who has embodied the concept a step further in his conceptual understanding than the one who had just "understood" the concept. In other words:

embodiment of concept > knowing (or how many say "understanding") of the concept 

I talk about this because people say we don't need embodiment to understand or strategize the concept, but it's hard to agree to this statement. What is the difference between understanding and embodiment? There is none, to me.

I would say, that not always but in a lot of scenarios the difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment, is that in the case of embodyment you have intuitive knowledge.

Under intuitive knowledge i mean knowledge, that you can't really articulate and you don't neceassarily know conceptually, you just know it.

For instance, could you describe me how to walk, if i didn't have any intuitive knowledge about it? (How to and what leg muscles should i use and in what ways and in what times, how to lift my leg up, how to step forward, how to not fall, how to use my foot ) etcetc you probably wouldn't be able to. I have a sort of intuitive knowledge about it, that i have gathered by fail any try, but conceptually i could only understand it at a certain level.

In this case, conceptually i don't really have that much more knowledge about walking compared to a child, but i can still do the activity without being able to describe it or understand it in a very nuanced way. Now,  i could teach a child walking ,but not because i have great conceptual knowledge about it, but because that child already has a ton of intuitive knowledge inside him that can be used for learning that particular activity. (in this rare scenario, for the sake of teaching, you don't need to have a conceptual knowledge about the particular activity to be able to teach it)

Other example could be eating. Could you describe how to use all your organs and your muscles and your teeth and your tongue to be able to eat something? To a certain level you might, but not to the level of your embodiment. But you still embodied this particular activity.

But for instance, in the case of boxing, for someone to be able to get to a world champion level, it doesn't really matter what genetics he has [what i mean here is that even if he has the best genetics in the world for boxing, he wouldn't be able to be a world champion without good coaches behind him], he need a really good coach behind him.  He need a certain coach who understand his movement, his setbacks, the concept of boxing, how to adjust certain exercises to certain anatomy, a coach who can evaluate the strength and weaknesses, who can see all the boxer's blindspots, and a coach who has a really deep conceptual understanding how to punch and a whole set of techniques how to defend punch) .

In this case, the coach could study this subject conceptually, and can understand all the knowledge that has been gathered from the past through a lot of fail and try by other boxers and coaches.

This coach can have this knowledge, and articulate this knowledge without needing to embody all the stances, all the punches all the defending of the punches.

So embodyment can happen without conceptual understanding.

Edited May 15, 2022 by zurew

[charlie cho]

@zurew ah

If I elaborate what you are saying, just like medical doctors will conceptually understand about the body, and he may as well perform surgery to save his clients, cure them from debilitating diseases, but that does not mean the doctor himself will live a long healthy life. We see that many times, and we see many elders who have no conceptual understanding of the body, have no skill to diagnose or perform surgery on a patient, but knows how to live a perfectly healthy life himself. 

So for the person helping, conceptual understanding is enough. Just because an elderly man intuitively knows how to live a healthy life himself, does not mean he can make others healthy. But an unhealthy doctor who has no intuitive understanding of how to make himself healthy, is very able to help other than himself be healthy. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by charlie cho

[_Archangel_]

@charlie cho

On 14/5/2022 at 10:24 PM, charlie cho said:

It's obvious, if you don't understand a concept, you can never teach it. If you don't know something, you can't teach that something. 

Of course there is a correlation, but usually undertanding something doesn't  mean being able to teach it.
Notice that exeptionality cannot be taught. No matter how good you are as a menager or you were as a player, no one has ever taught Messi or Jordan how to be exeptional.

 

On 14/5/2022 at 10:24 PM, charlie cho said:

only Buddha Siddhartha can teach about enlightenment.

Not true. There were surely people with less attainment tha the Buddha who had great success with teaching.
On the other hand, There are many awakened folk who would be pretty bad at teaching. These are the poeple that you don't see.

[zurew]

41 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

@zurew ah

If I elaborate what you are saying, just like medical doctors will conceptually understand about the body, and he may as well perform surgery to save his clients, cure them from debilitating diseases, but that does not mean the doctor himself will live a long healthy life. We see that many times, and we see many elders who have no conceptual understanding of the body, have no skill to diagnose or perform surgery on a patient, but knows how to live a perfectly healthy life himself. 

So for the person helping, conceptual understanding is enough. Just because an elderly man intuitively knows how to live a healthy life himself, does not mean he can make others healthy. But an unhealthy doctor who has no intuitive understanding of how to make himself healthy, is very able to help other than himself be healthy. 

Yeah, exactly.

[Waken]

Who cares.. just let go and relax :-)

[Leo Gura]

To be a good teacher you fundamentally have to want to teach. Many people aren't interested in teaching.

A passion for teaching is not the same thing as a passion for playing. And without passion you cannot be great.

[thisintegrated]

 

Quote

The best players usually aren't the best teachers

They can be, but they're different skillsets.  It's just uncommon for someone to be both a good player and a good coach.

Being the best player may have a 0.001% probability.  Being the best coach may have a similar probability.

Being in the 0.001% in TWO whole different things at the same time has an even lower probability.  That's why you'll rarely see an amazing player be an amazing coach.

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[puporing]

The best players generally didn't want to teach as much as they wanted to work on/excel in perfecting the craft aspect. The ones who are/were both best player and best coach are usually ones who have reached their "personal peaks" with their craft and then decided to step back and coach others, but they still have to have a passion for teaching or it won't be as good as their playing. 

[charlie cho]

@Leo Gura I completely understand what you mean. 

Well, I know this question may be too philosophical...

 Why is it then that the college professors, who are largely employed to research their own field, are also the ones who are responsible for teaching in universities? 

And also, would you say Buddha is a researcher of Truth or the teacher of Truth?

Although you say teaching and playing is a totally different field, in actuality I see too many examples of researchers being teachers. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by charlie cho