Thank-you Rob. This was one of my favorites! I hope I’m the future you (journal club, etc. ) will address why it’s been such a loooong struggle to get people to accept even the basic ideas around movement variability. Sure, your podcast (in the larger context of movement science) is *relatively* new, but Bernstein’s work and everything in variability that’s happened since including the well-explained, practical application discussions by you and others… I just don’t understand why this is so *aggressively ignored.* I get what it’s like to have your world views turned upside down. My degree was Kinesiology, with a strict “correct biomechanics” model driving everything. But while the variability concept was surprising and counter-intuitive at first, how can do many people choose to ignore a now LARGE and robust body of work on variability? I guess it goes in the same space where we ignore aaaaallll the work in *focus of attention* cues. What I’m most fascinated by is the ever-widening gap between what science *says* and what coaching/teaching *does*. Nobody needs to first understand an ecological view in order to recognize that all the variability research is telling a movement story quite different from the one most of us were trained in. But then, I’m wondering how I could go through five years of uni biomechanics and not ONCE did any lecturer, prof, textbook mention “Bernstein.” (Or that in my second career in comp sci, not once did anyone mention “Gibson” and we all thought Don Norman was Affordances Guy. 🤷🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️)
I agree, this was a fantastic podcast. It is also interesting to me how vigorously people seem to ignore Bernstein’s ideas. Your podcasts makes me think about Bernstein’s instruction to develop repertoires of solutions (I.e. variable solutions) rather than trying to find the perfect solution which of course would only work in one set of conditions.
Thank-you Rob. This was one of my favorites! I hope I’m the future you (journal club, etc. ) will address why it’s been such a loooong struggle to get people to accept even the basic ideas around movement variability. Sure, your podcast (in the larger context of movement science) is *relatively* new, but Bernstein’s work and everything in variability that’s happened since including the well-explained, practical application discussions by you and others… I just don’t understand why this is so *aggressively ignored.*
I get what it’s like to have your world views turned upside down. My degree was Kinesiology, with a strict “correct biomechanics” model driving everything. But while the variability concept was surprising and counter-intuitive at first, how can do many people choose to ignore a now LARGE and robust body of work on variability? I guess it goes in the same space where we ignore aaaaallll the work in *focus of attention* cues.
What I’m most fascinated by is the ever-widening gap between what science *says* and what coaching/teaching *does*.
Nobody needs to first understand an ecological view in order to recognize that all the variability research is telling a movement story quite different from the one most of us were trained in.
But then, I’m wondering how I could go through five years of uni biomechanics and not ONCE did any lecturer, prof, textbook mention “Bernstein.”
(Or that in my second career in comp sci, not once did anyone mention “Gibson” and we all thought Don Norman was Affordances Guy. 🤷🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️)
I agree, this was a fantastic podcast. It is also interesting to me how vigorously people seem to ignore Bernstein’s ideas. Your podcasts makes me think about Bernstein’s instruction to develop repertoires of solutions (I.e. variable solutions) rather than trying to find the perfect solution which of course would only work in one set of conditions.