My definition of “critical thinking” is reflecting on a given concept or scenario over a period of time and analyzing it. We can borrow Daniel Kahneman‘s systems of thinking (System 1 and System 2) to illustrate the example. Kahneman, author of “Thinking, Fast and Slow” defines System 1 thinking as fast and instinctive, while System 2 thinking is slow, more deliberate, and what I would consider more critical. An example could be when I am asked “Where are you from?”. As I am of Asian descent, it can become a loaded question. With System 1 thinking, it’s easy to be instinctively offended by jumping to a conclusion (“I think this person is being racist.”) based on current events (for more information, consider the #thisis2016 hashtag). System 1 thinking evolved from protecting people from danger in the past. However, with System 2 thinking, it would help me analyze the situation and act appropriately. Instead of answering the loaded question of “Where are you from?”, the best option is usually to ask a question back, “Where do you think I’m from? Try and guess?”. Instead of instinctively assuming hostility from the question, it would be better to probe a bit further to clarify intent. Perhaps they have been to Asia and simply want to discuss culture. Perhaps they are genuinely curious and want to learn about my culture. Or, worst case, they were actually intending to provoke me, by using race. Regardless of how the situation continues, that is the example of critical thinking I have chosen to use.
I find that both critical thinking and problem solving are not mutually exclusive and they generally operate together. Although the focus of this competency is critical thinking, there will be a large amount of problem solving as well. I suppose there can be quick fixes with little critical thinking involved with some problems, but I will do my best to illustrate critical thinking as the main theme of this blog post.
Before I go into critical thinking in coaching, let me explain how coaching works in badminton. Coaches have a designated seating area behind the court, and up to a maximum of 2 coaches are allowed per player/team each match. Coaches usually coach at the 11-point intervals (60 seconds) and between games (120 seconds). However, the umpire indicates when there are 20 seconds remaining, and that is the cue for coaches to return to their seats and players return to the court. There is minor coaching allowed in between rallies, but the coach must be in their seat and it must not interfere with continuous play.
In Canada, there are various situations that can happen, in which a player/team will have 2 coaches (extremely rare), 1 coach (rare), 1 or 2 players coaching (uncommon), and no coach (common). This is largely due to limited resources, which is a different can of worms I will not be opening today. Additionally, it gets even more complicated because we have different coaches for different events. For the past 4 years, we have had a National Team coaching pool, where coaches across Canada apply to become a National Team coach. For a certain event, usually a team event, we would have a National Team coach assigned to the event. Unfortunately, most of the National Team coaches do not actually work with any of the National Team players on an individual basis. As there is a broad range of abilities across National Team players, how appropriate is it for a coach that a player has rarely (or sometimes never) worked with to coach the player? This policy was used from continental team championships all the way to World Championships and Olympics. To put this in perspective, my personal coaches have never been able to coach me at any World Championship, Commonwealth Games, Pan Am Games, or Olympic events.
Personally, I usually do best with a coach I work with regularly behind the court. I would then settle for a teammate if available that I also work with regularly. Then, I would rather have no coach, for the most part. As a coach, I abide by my own beliefs and will usually avoid coaching athletes that I don’t know very well, unless they are adamant in wanting someone to coach them. For some players, they would rather have someone talk to them for support instead of having to stand alone while their opponent(s) get coaching by their respective coaches. However, I leave it up the the player to decide.
Let us illustrate this in 2 examples (as a player, and as a coach):
Example 1: As a Player
Scenario #1: One time, my mixed partner and I were at a tournament, working with one of the National Team coaches. My partner was having trouble against some deceptive shots that our opponent was hitting. We ended up losing 2-3 rallies because of that. At the interval, the coach recommended that I hit shots slightly faster to make it more difficult to my opponent to attempt those shots.
Discussion: What are your thoughts? My first question for you to consider is whether you think the solution is a “System 1” solution, or a “System 2” solution? I think it is a System 1 solution. If the opponent is doing *that*, then don’t let them do *that*. Given the limited amount of information, it becomes difficult to come up with more strategies. Now here’s the kicker: So if it is hard to come up with strategies with limited information, then why would you ask a coach who hasn’t worked with us regularly to coach us? As a result, the coaching purely involves System 1 thinking, which is reactionary based on whatever information comes to us at the moment.
Solution: I ended up disagreeing with the coach and suggested the following instead (System 2 thinking)
– The opponents shots are ‘deceptive’ meaning that they are higher risk or lower percentage shots. As long as the game is close, it would be increasingly difficult for the opponent to continue winning rallies based on that one shot.
– I had confidence that my partner will eventually adjust to the situation, and I let her know that.
– By hitting my shots ‘faster’, it forces a significant change in the game. It would be a cue to my opponent that I am making a change, and I feared that he would be able to adapt to our new strategy and have an even more favourable position in the game. I apologize to those who may not understand what I am talking about very well, but I will try to elaborate. In the doubles events, the shot angles used are very important. The intention is to get angles that are coming downward to the opponent, forcing them to lift the shuttle upward, in which you can then continue to attack and keep the angles down. The easiest way to get a downward angle is to hit a slower shot to the net. The disadvantage is that it is not overly aggressive and the opponent is likely to return the shot, but the shots are usually rising and you maintain an angled advantage. In the case of this example, my shots were slow enough that my opponent could try some deceptive movements with the racquet. He pretended to hit the shot straight to the net, but would hit it crosscourt at the last moment (and ended getting a few points because of that). However, if I had to play faster shots (gives my opponent even less time for deception), my shots would lose angle, my opponent will contact the shuttle sooner, and he would simply have to play a slow shot, without deception, which would likely put us into a defensive position again. If my partner fails to react to a deceptive shot, the likelihood of me playing with a faster pace is not going to change very much, except make it easier for our opponents to get favourable angles. The coach saw the situation as a short term tactical adjustment, I saw it as a negative change in Winning Style of Play over the length of the match.
As you can see, System 2 explanations which include critical thinking are massive. But it is also because I hold a lot more information than the coach, in terms of what my abilities are and what my partner’s abilities are. Would it not be better to visit your family doctor instead of going to a drop-in clinic? To end the scenario, when we had Match Point, our opponent attempted to use the deceptive shot again, and hit it into the net which gave us the win. Regression to the mean, if you know what I mean…
Example 2: As a Coach
Scenario #2: Very recently, I was playing a tournament with a new partner, as my regular partner was unavailable that weekend for the event. My new partner asked me to coach her Singles final, in which I initially declined. I am not very good at singles, let alone knowing very much about Women’s Singles. She still wanted me to coach if I could, so I reluctantly accepted. To make the most of the situation, I decided to talk to her to get as much information as possible.
Discussion: Let’s take a brief moment to flip the situation around, where I am a player again. If I am getting coached by someone I don’t regularly work with, I usually am making the assumption that they have *something* that might make a difference, especially if I ask them to coach. It becomes very different when they volunteer or are assigned to coach me, but in the end, communication is key because it clarifies any expectations. For that player, she may have simply used System 1 thinking in assuming that because I am a good player, I would be a good coach. But with System 2 thinking, we know that it may not necessarily be true, depending on the situation. I usually much prefer coaching after a match, where I can observe and gather more information about the player, in addition to asking questions before giving any feedback. I do this because I think this is the best way to coach in situations like this, but it is quite obvious that not everyone shares this point of view.
To carry on with the scenario, I offered the player a strategy I learned from Ryan Holiday‘s “The Obstacle Is The Way“. In one of the book chapters, he offers a story where a company does a “premortem” in which the company assumed that their project failed and they have to figure out what they would do from there. The strategy, credited to psychologist Gary Klein, involves developing scenarios where failure can occur, and coming up with a solution to that failure.
For example, if the player has an aggressive style of play, what happens if it doesn’t work in her match tomorrow?
– What if the player makes more unforced errors because she is nervous? Then, attack to the center of the court and expect an appropriate return.
Then we can take it deeper (e.g. What if attacking to the center of the court doesn’t work?)
– Then, change the frequency of attack and opt for longer rallies until she gets a better feel for the game
– Or, if it is due to nervousness, find the appropriate strategies to limit those feelings/thoughts (eg. breathing, gamesmanship, etc.)
The idea of the strategy is to offer her a way to “coach herself first”, because I am confident that she knows herself and her abilities more than I do. I would then do my best to offer limited feedback because I trust the athlete can take care of herself and may just want a bit of extra encouragement in form of a coach. I also asked who she normally has as a coach, and what they do for her, and she indicated that sometimes she gets “stuck”, and the coach helps her get “unstuck”. Again, I offered her a thought experiment: imagine a time she was “stuck” and how she was able to overcome that situation.
LONG STORY SHORT… her opponent got pretty sick the next morning so she ended up winning by default…
The “premortem” strategy is very intriguing to me and was based on stoic philosophy, which was introduced to me in “The Obstacle is the Way”. Holiday heavily borrows from the writings of Marcus Aurelius (emperor of Rome in 161-180), and his book looks at turning obstacles into opportunities. The book is sectioned into 3 parts, based on the three disciplines: perception, action, and will. The essence of an obstacle is how we perceive it, how we act on it, and when things still don’t work out, our will to accept it.
For example, using myself, I did not qualify for the Rio Olympics (the obstacle), but because of that, I have found opportunities to establish new partnerships and I have reached a tournament stage I never achieved before with both partners.
– Will: I choose to accept that I wasn’t good enough to qualify, and I am armed with the knowledge on what it takes to make it for next time (either for myself or to pass the knowledge along to the next generation of athletes)I am interested to start implementing stoic philosophy and principles into my coaching, which would give room for more athlete-centered coaching. By taking an athlete-centered approach, I can also help athletes find their own opportunities in their obstacles. And to help remind me, I will use the Serenity Prayer:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change / The courage to change the things I can / And the wisdom to know the difference”