Maintaining an Intrapersonal Culture of Improvement

My friend Andy made the basketball team at Vassar (congrats buddy!) and posts about something we discussed last year when we were co-captains of the varsity basketball team in high school.

Basketball coaches (and most every other coach) often say at the end of a practice, “Ok guys, this was a so-so practice, let’s be sure to have a really good one tomorrow and put in a full 100%.”

Andy hated when coaches said this because he put in 100% and thought the “We need to give more effort” line was hackneyed and ineffective because of overuse. I understood his frustration. He worked harder (100% all the time) than anyone on the team. But for most of us the reality is we do waver from 100% to 95% back to 100% effort.

Yet even if you are one of those people who thinks (or actually is) a 100%, A+ effort 24/7 kind of guy, accepting this reality can be a dangerous psychological mindset.

If you settle for 100% or A+ then you are settling. The crave to improve evaporates. If you feel like you’ve peaked then you’ve lost your “intrapersonal culture of improvement”.

One reason why I like personal development books / blogs / articles so much is they speak to the idea that we can all improve ourselves and our lives. I’m really happy right now, but why could I not be even happier? I think I’m a pretty organized guy, but who says I couldn’t be even more organized?

I think I’m working really hard at practice, but surely there are ways I could work even harder (or smarter).

This introspection and focus on improvement combats the dangerous mindset of accepting the “status quo” which translates into complacency. Like everything, this is a balancing act. I think you need to at once appreciate and celebrate your own hard work, and then strive to build on it.

An Investment Bank Only Looking for Jocks

My brother told me the other day that an investment bank one of his friends works for is looking to hire recent college graduates…and they just want to recruit college athletes (with some exceptions).

This is consistent with everything else I know, anecdotally and statistically. Anecdotally I can say most bright jocks enter professions such as investment banking, consulting, or other high stress/high payoff positions. Statistically college athletes make more money in their careers on average than non-athletes, probably because a college jock is less likely to go into academia, for example, than tthe corporate world. (See Princeton Roundtable and NYRB)

Despite my diminishing interest in sports, as a former jock I can say two things:

1) Non-athletes never seem to appreciate the skills a devoted athlete builds during his/her sports career. These skills include teamwork, communication, unwavering commitment, sacrifice, failure, and so forth. It is possible to build these skills in non-athletic situations, but it’s not as central as it is in team sports.

2) Non-athletes who complain about preferential admissions to colleges for recruited athletes never seem to acknowledge the projected earnings of athletes in their lifetime, and athletes’ tendency to give more to their alma mater. Athletes are meaningful donors to their schools. I’m not saying this should trump other troubling indicators of academically underqualified athletes on campus.

The phrase "dumb jock" may be true. But it is also true that being smart or dumb doesn’t necessarily project success from an earnings perspective. Other traits such as work ethic are important, and sometimes competitive sports indoctrinates these capacities better than simple mental exercise or effort.

How the Response to the Italy vs. U.S. Soccer Game Explains Some European/U.S. Differences

After the U.S. tied Italy in the World Cup in a bloody match that left several players with red cards (kicked out) and various injuries, the commentary fell in one of two camps: a) the Americans displayed heart and valor in the surprising effort or b) “The U.S. team makes its own publicity true and turns the game into war” in an effort that shamed the country and the sport. Roger Cohen, who writes the “Globalist” column in the International Herald Tribune, had a great analysis a few days ago (TimesSelect) about how the two reactions speak to the differences in European and American vernacular and values. He writes, “Europe lives in a post-heroic and post-militaristic culture” whereas “Wars, warriors, blood, and military bases: such images, and locations, are the stuff of everyday American life.” Indeed, the American players were housed at Ramsein Air Base prior to the match and striker Eddie Johnson said the American team is “here for a war” while the goalie Kasey Keller said the nine men left standing in the game “bled today for our country and our team.”

From advertising to the metaphors of high-school sports coaches, the message of life as a battle inseparable from valor, individual heroism, sacrifice, grand dreams and allegiance to the Stars and Stripes is often insistent. In Europe, of course, the vernacular is a very different one. It is, in general, that of a continent that saw too many of its own cut down in the 20th century to see in military heroism anything but a destructive illusion. For Europe, peace is a core value; Americans see the world another way.

Hmm. He doesn’t say “Americans see it the opposite” — which I think is accurate delicacy. It’s not as if peace isn’t a core value for America, it’s one of a few. Cohen continues,

In this age where America cannot go anywhere without stirring controversy, it was inevitable that a football game would stir some more. And the arguments have led me to ponder whether I would rather live in a heroic or post-heroic culture, whether I prefer guileless enthusiasm or sophisticated cynicism. The American quest for heros can easily turn tacky. Hero itself is an overused word…But the instinct behind the tackiness should not be scorned. Europe does scorn very well. It is a reactive power, and what it principally reacts to is the United States. Being the chief protagonist of history is more difficult; you ahve to put yourself forward and you are going to conspicuous mistakes. But I prefer the risk-taking culture that is ready to commit those errors in the name of big ideas to the one that derides the mistakes.

Naturally, Cohen concludes he thought the Italy-America game had an “elemental magnificence.” I didn’t see the game, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the analogy, but I do I think some of the cultural contrasts work. What do you think?

When No Negative Thoughts Cross Your Mind

Sports psychology is really interesting. I’m told elite athletes like Derek Jeter can go a whole game and not have a single negative thought enter their head. In other words, he doesn’t doubt for a second that he can hit the ball no matter who the pitcher is and what the environment is like.

I’m a big believer in the power of positive thinking. One thing I noticed recently is that when I’m on the treadmill I almost never have a negative thought. Staring at myself in the mirror, with great music going on in my ears, and the endorphins flowing throughout my body, I feel like I can do and be anything.

For me, it’s the treadmill. Do you have an activity or place where you can go and be immersed in positive feeling?