It's an interesting comparison I've never thought about before, but on a cursory reading I have some initial gut feelings. For context, I have lifted on and off for about 10 years and train for...
Exemplary
It's an interesting comparison I've never thought about before, but on a cursory reading I have some initial gut feelings. For context, I have lifted on and off for about 10 years and train for other sports so I'm pretty familiar with these principals in that context. Writing this out has actually changed my mind in that intially I thought there weren't great parallels for non-athletic hobbies/pursuits to thinking it is exactly the same process.
I think most of these are things that we subconsciously put into practice and only think about in learning, pivotal, or liminal periods of our life. I think our time university, if we're luck enough to have it, is probably the the most direct version of this.
The Principle of Specificity: You try a few things out - be it anthropology, engineering, biological sciences - and once you've selected which interests you the most or has the best career potential you narrow your focus and dive deep into that specific field. It feels like a direct correlation to "if your goal is endurance, train for endurance; if your goal is strength, train for strength".
The Overload Principle: It requires that you “train a part of the body above the level to which it is accustomed” and I would say taking courses at more and more complex levels meets that requirement. Rather than loading more weight, you add more concepts or a deeper understand of concepts. First you learn about Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and then Elenor Ostrum's Social Ecological Systems. You learn the flaws of the first theory and more about the folks testing and critiquing the second. That process can be uncomfortable, but like the gym you often have peers and mentors to guide you through that discomfort.
The Principle of Progression: College courses are short (10-15 weeks) and so rapid progression is not only expected but mandated. Depending on the degree, you have 2-7 years to go from completely unfamiliar to competent, or at the PhD level, to subject matter expert.
The Principle of Accommodation: For this one, I don't think it's always expect to do during your time in university, but I think it often occurs. When you're collecting samples in the field or debating other schools of thought, those uncomfortable positions often provide the most meaningful discoveries or introspection. So I'd still say it's there.
The Principle of Reversibility: I'd say I felt this after entering the workforce. My more fluid positions cemented, my openness closed a little bit, and my knowledge base ended up becoming more task focuses than experimental/theory based. Which makes sense if you're working a job that needs consistent, tangible outcomes. Not to say I didn't have need to experiment or figure things out, but not in the same ways. I think going back to grad school 6 years later helped me refind some of that.
The Principle of Rest: I'd say there is a general lack of this in university and it's why many students experience burnout. Yes, in the younger years there is a good amount of partying, and summer break always helps, but with graduate/PhD students I think a lack of guilt free time away from their work is a detriment to the system.
I think outside of a formal education setting it can be hard to find time/space to engage with all these principals and you need intentional effort to make that space. A friend of ours joined a shared artist studio that has had a similar effect for her, access to mentors to critique her work and give her feedback, access to new tools/techniques, and a cohort of artists to bounce her ideas off of. It actually sounds like a pretty direct parallel to the gym now that I've written it out. I think in my own life, non-athletic hobbies have been driven more by friends, youtube, and short courses.
Foraging is one that I've picked up in the last decade and because there is very specific knowledge to ensure safe consumption it took a combination of paying for experts to walk us through and show us identification techniques, repeating those with friends who are also knowledgable at identification by going our foraging frequently, watching youtube videos on the subject to reinforce field based learning, and attending events to chat with and learn from peers.
So yeah, I agree with the sentiment of the article, but maybe a more condensed way. To find success at anything you need time and desire to dedicate yourself to learning, you need a support structure of mentors and peers to help guide you and provide feedback, and you need hands on repetition.
I'm curious what you all think about these ideas.
It's an interesting comparison I've never thought about before, but on a cursory reading I have some initial gut feelings. For context, I have lifted on and off for about 10 years and train for other sports so I'm pretty familiar with these principals in that context. Writing this out has actually changed my mind in that intially I thought there weren't great parallels for non-athletic hobbies/pursuits to thinking it is exactly the same process.
I think most of these are things that we subconsciously put into practice and only think about in learning, pivotal, or liminal periods of our life. I think our time university, if we're luck enough to have it, is probably the the most direct version of this.
The Principle of Specificity: You try a few things out - be it anthropology, engineering, biological sciences - and once you've selected which interests you the most or has the best career potential you narrow your focus and dive deep into that specific field. It feels like a direct correlation to "if your goal is endurance, train for endurance; if your goal is strength, train for strength".
The Overload Principle: It requires that you “train a part of the body above the level to which it is accustomed” and I would say taking courses at more and more complex levels meets that requirement. Rather than loading more weight, you add more concepts or a deeper understand of concepts. First you learn about Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and then Elenor Ostrum's Social Ecological Systems. You learn the flaws of the first theory and more about the folks testing and critiquing the second. That process can be uncomfortable, but like the gym you often have peers and mentors to guide you through that discomfort.
The Principle of Progression: College courses are short (10-15 weeks) and so rapid progression is not only expected but mandated. Depending on the degree, you have 2-7 years to go from completely unfamiliar to competent, or at the PhD level, to subject matter expert.
The Principle of Accommodation: For this one, I don't think it's always expect to do during your time in university, but I think it often occurs. When you're collecting samples in the field or debating other schools of thought, those uncomfortable positions often provide the most meaningful discoveries or introspection. So I'd still say it's there.
The Principle of Reversibility: I'd say I felt this after entering the workforce. My more fluid positions cemented, my openness closed a little bit, and my knowledge base ended up becoming more task focuses than experimental/theory based. Which makes sense if you're working a job that needs consistent, tangible outcomes. Not to say I didn't have need to experiment or figure things out, but not in the same ways. I think going back to grad school 6 years later helped me refind some of that.
The Principle of Rest: I'd say there is a general lack of this in university and it's why many students experience burnout. Yes, in the younger years there is a good amount of partying, and summer break always helps, but with graduate/PhD students I think a lack of guilt free time away from their work is a detriment to the system.
I think outside of a formal education setting it can be hard to find time/space to engage with all these principals and you need intentional effort to make that space. A friend of ours joined a shared artist studio that has had a similar effect for her, access to mentors to critique her work and give her feedback, access to new tools/techniques, and a cohort of artists to bounce her ideas off of. It actually sounds like a pretty direct parallel to the gym now that I've written it out. I think in my own life, non-athletic hobbies have been driven more by friends, youtube, and short courses.
Foraging is one that I've picked up in the last decade and because there is very specific knowledge to ensure safe consumption it took a combination of paying for experts to walk us through and show us identification techniques, repeating those with friends who are also knowledgable at identification by going our foraging frequently, watching youtube videos on the subject to reinforce field based learning, and attending events to chat with and learn from peers.
So yeah, I agree with the sentiment of the article, but maybe a more condensed way. To find success at anything you need time and desire to dedicate yourself to learning, you need a support structure of mentors and peers to help guide you and provide feedback, and you need hands on repetition.