While I may have feelings one way or another about the
likelihood that the theories espoused in this book
are correct, what is MUCH MORE intriguing is
the title of the book- TABOO.
If I were just looking over titles in a bookstore,
this title would tell me that the subject of the
book is NOT whether or not there is any relevance
to genetic predetermination theory, but rather what causes
the social phenomenons which result in extreme
pressure on any individual who would even consider
suggesting research into a topic such as this.
Does 'blacklisting' by academia relegate any
researchers in this area to 'political correctness
hell' ? Does it mean that they can never get 'published'
by academic journals again on ANY topic?
For example, the bashing that Dr. Bannister got
by the so-called 'liberal academia' through the media
a few years ago after his making a 'casual observation'
kind of statement about long/short twitch fibers
relating to East or West African origins, and saying
that it merits more study.
At least we now know that the subject is anything
BUT taboo on this list- resulting in some of the
longest threads in list history. Don't know if
that's good or bad, but at least it means list
subscribers are willing to talk about it out in
the open.
A few years ago on the list, when a similar idea
was tossed into the hat for discussion, a bunch
of coaches quickly jumped in and bashed the originator,
saying if there was even an iota of truth in the theory,
which they didn't believe for a second, they couldn't
POSSIBLY share such a reality with any of the athletes
they coach, for fear of them losing all motivation.
They argued that exposure of such facts, even if true,
serves no PRACTICAL purpose but to damage the 'everybody
has a chance' appeal of track & field as a sport.
Therefore, any investment in research into the topic
is not warranted, and should actually be discouraged.
Research funding could be better spent elsewhere, they said.
Does that kind of coach still exist? Don't coaches
have any other kind of motivational techniques they
can draw on, even if genetic roots theories DO turn
out to be true?
Or is it just an example of "ostrich" behaviour (sticking
head in a hole in the ground to avoid seeing things
that are scary, which by the way, exposes the posterior
to open attack!)
Is there practical VALUE to our sport of getting the
answers to the genetics questions? If so, what?
Will "the truth set us free?" ..hmmmmm...
To me, this kind of examination of the 'Taboo' phenomenon,
with it's political correctness and social bashing
symptoms, is an even MORE interesting topic than the
genetics topic behind it.
What's the best way to get people to open their minds
and THINK in spite of political incorrectness, in
order to get truth out in the open? WhereEVER the truth
turns out to be...
Jon's approach sometimes seems to be in-the-face
confrontation...or maybe I'm confusing his discussion
technique with the responses he often stimulates...
... is that the best way to get the dialogue on a 'taboo'
topic out in the open? I'm not sure I know the answer.
It seems to have succeeded in stimulating a lot of
discussion on this list, but how well does that approach
work elsewhere?
RT
