RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceImagine this. You are 6 years old. Four weeks ago, Mommy and Daddy asked you to let them swab your cheek. Today they got a big letter in the mail, and after they opened it, they told you that next ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
- It seems like what you really object to is hyper-pushy parents who want to live through their kids and push them away from their interests. Parents should let kids do what they like, you say. Fine. Why go after a test? The test neither makes parents mellow nor injects them with large doses of adrenaline. It *assumes* a hyper-involved parent - such exist whether you're talking about football or quantum field theory - and gives her guidance (not perfect, obviously) about where her hyper efforts are most likely to pay off. It's the sport equivalent of testing for gifted programs.
- The company's not saying that it's necessary to have these genes, only that it helps (and a great deal at the highest levels.) They're certainly not saying it's sufficient to have the RR or whatever version.
- You can either insist that it's "obvious" which child will become a good athlete is (so a test is not needed) or you can say that there are hundreds of factors go into athletic performance (so that testing is complicated, maybe even impossible.) You can't have it both ways. The same thing can't be so simple no test is needed and so complicated that no test is possible.
- Whatever this is, it isn't a scam. The numbers you yourself present represent quite significant effects, and further the effect itself isn't utterly unexplained. Which version of the gene you have directly affects the composition of your muscle fibers. You have some Gattaca-like fears, acknowledge them honestly, and point out the possible harmful social effects. Why pretend like a scientific result is bunk simply because you dislike the implications? Why does something have to be "nonsense" simply because it is unappealing? Did you never learn to bite a bullet or to separate descriptive from normative questions?
I agree with you that it's a scam.
When it comes to extracting money from worried parents, there’s no shortage of business models -- because parents are under so much pressure these days to make sure our kids succeed. That’s because kids are facing competition everywhere they turn — in school, in sports, in music, you name it. One girl I know even had to compete to get into her school’s community service program!
All this hyper-competition makes parents feel like their kids must be “the best” if they’re going to survive in a dog-eat-dog world. Our evolutionary hardwiring — which arose when it was essential for parents to push their kids to compete for food and to stay away from predators — reacts to the competition in our children’s world by turning on our “fight or flight” anxiety. It makes us feel that we have to do whatever we can to help our kids compete and win.
Enter the entrepreneurs willing to “help” us do that! And yet -- isn’t it perfectly understandable that we want our kids to achieve? Sure. But the problem is that schemes like genetic testing put pressure on the kids to excel. And such pressure backfires. What makes children excel in sports is their love of the game — which comes from the fun of playing, the feelings of camaraderie, the pride from acquiring new skills. Their passion motivates them to practice and eventually excel. But pressure from without — from anyone, for example, expecting them to live up to the ‘promise’ of a so-called ’sports gene’ — is a good way to kill that passion.
Kathy Seal
Coauthor, Pressured Parents, Stressed-out Kids: Dealing with Competition to Raise a Successful Child
www.kathyseal.net
I always liked the Sprint commercials that feature their push-to-talk phones in a world ran by professionals most likely to use them (i.e. roadies, a movie production crew, etc.) The humor was on the faces of the people in the commercial who didn't know they were part of an alternate universe that used these phones. My favorite is, what if roadies ran an airport? As flight attendants, big burly guys walk down the aisles of a plane and say, "buckle up, dude." Or, before takeoff, two sound and lighting guys posing as pilots phone the tower saying, "Lights," "Camera," "Action." The plane successfully lifts off to pyrotechnics proving the functionality of the phones.
Then there was the film production crew who did wedding planning. They used their phones to cut the rain and introduce sunshine and cue the cue card behind the reverend that said, "I do," and get a hunky stunt groom to replace the regular groom who got cold feet.
These are funny and outrageous commercials. They are understood to be ridiculous. My mind thinks of them as I read about this idea of genetically testing children to determine their predisposition to play sports. My first thoughts were visions of parents actually playing out that ridiculous scenario. What is the big deal, right? There is no harm in receiving paperwork that helps a parent understand the genetic makeup of their child, better. And, if a parent does have the means to buy their child a competitive advantage, why should they not do so? The biggest reason is it almost statistically impossible. A child is unlikely to receive any more of an advantage than the next child. Very, very, very, very small percentage of athletes get college scholarships. Even smaller percentages of players play for a college squad and play well enough to get drafted and play for a pro team. And finally, an even smaller percentage actually emerge from the bench on that pro team.
However well intentioned, however misguided, what they don’t understand is that children possess potential , assuming it is unlocked, that is well beyond what any genetic test could tell them. The road to greatness begins in nurturing potential, not science. Science, theories and the media is what has interfered with children’s ability to play in unstructured, fun ways. The playground is one of the best proving grounds for cultivating talent. Kids learn things, less the pressure of parents and coaches, structured sports settings often miss. Unfortunately, few take the time to properly unlock talent, nurture children’s passion for the game and guide a child’s positive attitude.
I can't say I am surprised that the type of alternate universe the story writes about exists in youth sports. For years, parents have been approaching the rearing of their children as athletes like they were thoroughbred breeders. This is just another new way to tap into parents wallets who are willing to buy a winner. My suggestion to parents. Save your money and invest in listening to your child’s needs. Find good coaching that puts kids first. I suggest reading what the parents of Olympic champions did. Most cases, I have found, parents had healthy approaches to nurturing their son or daughters talents.
Regardless of the genetic company’s president's sales pitch, parents should have the common sense to know better. Statistically 70% of children drop out of sports by age 13, and it is overbearing parents and overzealous coaches that are the cause. I fear these hyper-involved parents will focus on return-on investment ahead of a children's best interest. In the end let’s face it. One child who receives the test will succeed and make it to the pros. Four words, results are not typical. Do what’s in the best interest of children, believe in them and let nature take its course. Just a thought, what if children ran the world? What would they say to these parents? I am sure it wouldn’t be, just do it, dude!
Brad Kayden, Chief Fun Officer
Jelly Bean Sports, Inc. –Sports Made Simple, Learning Made Fun
www.jellybeansports.com