Ania,
Yeah, and in fact I really don't want to disrespect the effort and dedication that the top-flight athletes exhibit.
Perseverance and dedication are, after all, virtues, and I think it is appropriate to admire people like Tiger Woods or Michelle Kwan.
The problem is the failure to similarly honor intellectual ability and achievement. I�m not sure why this is. Is it that we all think we could be Michael Jordan, or Tiger, or Michelle since they make it look so easy? Of course, we obviously can�t, but since we can at least (sort of) understand what they are doing, perhaps they are not a threat to that all-American egalitarian belief that we are really all the same.
Since most people cannot even understand what Ed Witten or Andrew Wiles or Stephen Hawking has achieved (I have trouble understanding Witten�s work myself � and he and I are in the same field!), is this kind of top-level intellectual achievement a threat to most people because it reminds us that we really are nothing like equal to those guys?
Are even the achievements of gifted children a threat to most adults because they could not have matched those achievements as kids themselves?
What I think is especially insidious about all this is that, as beautiful as her skating undoubtedly is, Michelle Kwan will not find a cure for cancer or find a long-term sustainable source of energy. Those things, which we really need, will be found by someone who excels intellectually. Furthermore, Michelle will not be weaving her magic or advancing the art of skating when she is in her sixites (although she will no doubt continue to contribute behind the scenes). Yet, Steve Hawking is well into his �60s and still contributing, despite his debilitating disease (I had a chance to meet Hawking when I was a student back in the �70s � at the time, we were assured he�d be dead in a decade from his ALS).
Since few kids will ever be Tiger or Michelle, surely an emphasis on intellectual achievement will tend to serve them better throughout their entire life.
questions,
Interesting article by deFord. He does make me wonder if this �spectator society� (think �reality TV�) has made public adulation (or at least attention) the only thing considered to be of real value. I think that Dick Button, and perhaps even Peggy Fleming, skated primarily out of a love for the intrinsic beauty of the sport. DeFord seems to think this sense has been lost. What a shame. After all, the real point of the sport, both for spectators and participants, was once grace and beauty, not just triple Axels.
All the best,
Dave
