Constructive input- welcome or invasive?

RayCun

Sometimes it's good to give advice even when you're only a little more experienced than the people you are advising. I think the novices thread is a great example. Having a novice from one year advising the next year means they are closer to the experiences and abilities of the people on the thread, and can give advice that is relatable. And keep hammering the main points of training, because that's all they know means things don't get too complicated.

The more you know, the more you want to know someone's life history before making suggestions

squinn2912

Good point there. If it feels like someone is way far above your level it can be overwhelming taking advice from them.

Safiri

Murph_D wrote: »

Echo most of the above though - advice is especially welcome from people who have earned respect through a history of constructive contribution and proven results. The emphasis being on ‘earned’.

OOnegative wrote: »

I as has been stated already welcome any input on my log, constructive or otherwise. Having been around this place a while you get to know people and who to listen to.

But when you slip into this mindframe, don't you lose all objectivity which is the very thing that drives discussion? I think many people have being here for so long that they have forgotten what it is like to be a new poster. I have been in that position many a time(and although refreshing for me to not have my posts seen with as much authority), I can see the flipside of the content coming second to the reputation for new posters. Nic Bideau could start posting in the morning and gain no traction for instance. Just because a poster hasn't earned respect on boards doesn't mean they are not knowlegeable or don't have something to offer.

Training is not as simple as a select few know everything and everyone else knows nothing, no one knows everything and that means that others that may have less overall knowledge being more informed in certain areas and vice versa. Training is also contrasting and there's more than one way to skin a cat which is the beauty of it; contrasting opinions drive evolution.

I think often contrasting opinions are seen as confrontational and that one person is right and the other is wrong; that doesn't have to be the case and more often than not isn't. There can be a lot of good stuff in all differing opinions and not just a case of oh he/she said that so they are right and that's it one and done. I see it here very often and have been on both sides when someone questions someone elses approach and there's a reply back from the person's log. The reply often reaches boards post of the day level of likes no matter how relevant or thought out the questions were. Discussion doesn't have to be seen as confrontational and questioning others and yourself is the only way to learn more.

And of course, this is just another opinion but were some of the thoughts that triggered me to start this thread.

OOnegative

Safiri wrote: »

But when you slip into this mindframe, don't you lose all objectivity which is the very thing that drives discussion? I think many people have being here for so long that they have forgotten what it is like to be a new poster. I have been in that position many a time(and although refreshing for me to not have my posts seen with as much authority), I can see the flipside of the content coming second to the reputation for new posters. Nic Bideau could start posting in the morning and gain no traction for instance. Just because a poster hasn't earned respect on boards doesn't mean they are not knowlegeable or don't have something to offer.

Training is not as simple as a select few know everything and everyone else knows nothing, no one knows everything and that means that others that may have less overall knowledge being more informed in certain areas and vice versa. Training is also contrasting and there's more than one way to skin a cat which is the beauty of it; contrasting opinions drive evolution.

I think often contrasting opinions are seen as confrontational and that one person is right and the other is wrong; that doesn't have to be the case and more often than not isn't. There can be a lot of good stuff in all differing opinions and not just a case of oh he/she said that so they are right and that's it one and done. I see it here very often and have been on both sides when someone questions someone elses approach and there's a reply back from the person's log. The reply often reaches boards post of the day level of likes no matter how relevant or thought out the questions were. Discussion doesn't have to be seen as confrontational and questioning others and yourself is the only way to learn more.

And of course, this is just another opinion but were some of the thoughts that triggered me to start this thread.

Where did I state I would not listen or take advice on board from new posters? I merely stated that from being around here a while you can figure out who to listen to and who not to, some of the newer posters around here make a fantastic contribution to the forum and long may that continue.

Edit: And if I come across as cranky in that post it’s not meant in that vain.

squinn2912

There;s a balance but at the end of the day you need some form of tried and trusted. If I get advice from someone, try it out and it works for me well then I'll consider that person a good source. If the opposite is true then I'll be reluctant to follow. For advice to be useful (not good or bad) then usually it can't be too radically different from what I'd been thinking already - marginal improvements leading to bigger ones.
The type of advice that might work well is stuff that is realistic but not negative, informed and not arrogant and encouraging without being over-zealous. Often the best thing to do is what you were thinking all along yourself but it's crucial in my opinion to bounce ideas around and try things out.

Safiri

OOnegative wrote: »

Where did I state I would not listen or take advice on board from new posters? I merely stated that from being around here a while you can figure out who to listen to and who not to, some of the newer posters around here make a fantastic contribution to the forum and long may that continue.

Edit: And if I come across as cranky in that post it’s not meant in that vain.

I asked a question which was there for you to answer back. The rest is merely my thoughts and opinion.

AuldManKing

OOnegative wrote: »

If you ever need a “good luck” or “well done” though i’m your man!!!

RayCun

Most people have a mental model of what training should look like. Maybe not very detailed, but some idea of how things should fit together.

If you propose something that fits that model, or at least doesn't contradict it, there won't be any resistance. Doesn't mean people will do anything about it, but maybe. Your suggestion to AMK about including more hills, for example. He doesn't have to radically restructure his training to include it, or ditch his coach, and you provided an argument that made sense.

If your suggestion does involve making radical changes, then people will naturally want a good reason to make those changes. Can you explain your reasoning? Do you have a track record of good advice? Are people familiar with how you train? Can you point to where you learned it, and is that source trusted? Otherwise people will dismiss it as "some bloke on the internet", and why wouldn't they?

(If Nic Bideau started posting, he could provide good answers to those questions!)

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

(If Nic Bideau started posting, he could provide good answers to those questions!)

If Nic Bideau started posting here my first thought would be he's some troll pretending to be Nic Bideau

TFBubendorfer

A friend of mine posted a workout on facebook a couple of days ago. A really tough long run at quite some pace. Great workout. He's in great shape.

He got tons of "you're brilliant" comments. Of course he did.

My one thought is "you just messed up your upcoming marathon. You left your best performance behind in a training run".

Am I going to say it to him? Of course not. What's done is done and putting negative thoughts into his head shortly before a big race will do no good. But if he has a disappointing race and starts searching for reasons I'll tell him exactly where I think he went wrong. There is nothing to be gained in me putting my oar in un-asked for, though.

Swashbuckler

TFBubendorfer wrote:

Am I going to say it to him? Of course not. What's done is done and putting negative thoughts into his head shortly before a big race will do no good. But if he has a disappointing race and starts searching for reasons I'll tell him exactly where I think he went wrong. There is nothing to be gained in me putting my oar in un-asked for, though.

I second that. I've seen that a lot on Strava. Sometimes the back patting on really badly thought out training runs or even multiple races in one day is completely counter productive. In saying that I rarely provide the dissenting voice unless I'm asked directly.

Murph_D

Safiri wrote: »

But when you slip into this mindframe, don't you lose all objectivity which is the very thing that drives discussion? I think many people have being here for so long that they have forgotten what it is like to be a new poster. I have been in that position many a time(and although refreshing for me to not have my posts seen with as much authority), I can see the flipside of the content coming second to the reputation for new posters. Nic Bideau could start posting in the morning and gain no traction for instance. Just because a poster hasn't earned respect on boards doesn't mean they are not knowlegeable or don't have something to offer.

Training is not as simple as a select few know everything and everyone else knows nothing, no one knows everything and that means that others that may have less overall knowledge being more informed in certain areas and vice versa. Training is also contrasting and there's more than one way to skin a cat which is the beauty of it; contrasting opinions drive evolution.

I think often contrasting opinions are seen as confrontational and that one person is right and the other is wrong; that doesn't have to be the case and more often than not isn't. There can be a lot of good stuff in all differing opinions and not just a case of oh he/she said that so they are right and that's it one and done. I see it here very often and have been on both sides when someone questions someone elses approach and there's a reply back from the person's log. The reply often reaches boards post of the day level of likes no matter how relevant or thought out the questions were. Discussion doesn't have to be seen as confrontational and questioning others and yourself is the only way to learn more.

And of course, this is just another opinion but were some of the thoughts that triggered me to start this thread.

Posters who are not well known and give good advice in a constructive manner would soon be trusted and welcomed, I would have thought. There have been a few posters who seemed to be giving good advice but turned out to be bluffers. That's always a risk.

Can you give an example of the kind of 'confrontational and questioning' discussion that you are referring to above? I don't see it very often (although of course I don't read everyone's log).

Safiri

Murph_D wrote: »

Posters who are not well known and give good advice in a constructive manner would soon be trusted and welcomed, I would have thought. There have been a few posters who seemed to be giving good advice but turned out to be bluffers. That's always a risk.

Can you give an example of the kind of 'confrontational and questioning' discussion that you are referring to above? I don't see it very often (although of course I don't read everyone's log).

Good advice and bluffing don't coexist though, it's an either or situation I think. That's what I mean by looking at the content rather than the reputation; if you look at the advice and how it fits rather than the person posting it, it's more objective.

I'm not going to post specific examples of that happening because I don't think it is fair or just to pick people out on a public forum. I do think people can perceive questioning of an approach as confrontational though and why many won't speak up with thoughts as I myself have backed out of posting opinions at times for fear of it getting peoples backs up. It usually takes me a few goes at posting it before I ever do and often end up deleting post later when I have. I know many others do the same because I see it happening with posts getting edited and deleted too.

Murph_D

Safiri wrote: »

Good advice and bluffing don't coexist though, it's an either or situation I think. That's what I mean by looking at the content rather than the reputation; if you look at the advice and how it fits rather than the person posting it, it's more objective.

I'm not going to post specific examples of that happening because I don't think it is fair or just to pick people out on a public forum. I do think people can perceive questioning of an approach as confrontational though and why many won't speak up with thoughts as I myself have backed out of posting opinions at times for fear of it getting peoples backs up. It usually takes me a few goes at posting it before I ever do and often end up deleting post later when I have. I know many others do the same because I see it happening with posts getting edited and deleted too.

It can be bluffing if it’s objectively good advice but not offered from experience - I’ve seen one or two posters post ‘advice’ cut and pasted from a google search, for example.

If you question soneone’s approach and they are not open to it, good luck to them. Of course it happens here sometimes but I’d suggest it’s the exception rather than the rule.

joey1111

Murph_D wrote: »

It can be bluffing if it’s objectively good advice but not offered from experience - I’ve seen one or two posters post ‘advice’ cut and pasted from a google search, for example.

If you question soneone’s approach and they are not open to it, good luck to them. Of course it happens here sometimes but I’d suggest it’s the exception rather than the rule.

I don't get that, if someone gives you good advice and it works out well how can it matter what experience they have. They are intelligent people who sourced good information and offered it to you without you having to go looking.
Sounds like a good guy to me.

Bluffing to me is pretending to have ten years experience as a coach and offering good or bad advice to someone based on something you googled.

OOnegative

joey1111 wrote: »

I don't get that, if someone gives you good advice and it works out well how can it matter what experience they have. They are intelligent people who sourced good information and offered it to you without you having to go looking.
Sounds like a good guy to me.

Any of us can source good advice but have no clue what we’re talking about when it comes to that advice. Much rather take advice off someone who has sourced it and does know what there talking about.

joey1111

OOnegative wrote: »

Any of us can source good advice but have no clue what we’re talking about when it comes to that advice. Much rather take advice off someone who has sourced it and does know what there talking about.

And I totally agree with you about preferring advice from someone experienced but I think you're wrong that anyone can source good advice. You have to make an effort to source it and have the interest to do it. Theres plenty of armchair experts out there who may not have the physical experience but have a passion for whatever sport it is and are very informed about their topics.

I often notice you thanking information that is posted by some of the oldtimers here about subjects that they are not experts on experienced at but have read up about it or spoken to people about it.

Thats different though to bluffing which is what I was referring to when responding to the OP.

OOnegative

joey1111 wrote: »

I often notice you thanking information that is posted by some of the oldtimers here about subjects that they are not experts on experienced at but have read up about it or spoken to people about it.

Being an old timer myself I have come to trust a lot of what other oldtimers may post as I trust there opinions and advice. I can’t think of one piece of bad advice I have received off them either.

joey1111

OOnegative wrote: »

Being an old timer myself I have come to trust a lot of what other oldtimers may post as I trust there opinions and advice. I can’t think of one piece of bad advice I have received off them either.

well thats fine, thats your prerogative and I respect that OO.

OOnegative

joey1111 wrote: »

well thats fine, thats your prerogative and I respect that OO.

If you think i’m wrong i’m all ears, this is a discussion forum after all.

joey1111

Safiri wrote: »

I see it here very often and have been on both sides when someone questions someone elses approach and there's a reply back from the person's log. The reply often reaches boards post of the day level of likes no matter how relevant or thought out the questions were. Discussion doesn't have to be seen as confrontational and questioning others and yourself is the only way to learn more.

Sometimes its much more basic than that, its simply a poster supporting a poster they know simply because they know them rather than looking at the bigger picture and thinking logically.