Bo's Competitiveness Part 4

Bo, if he was receptive to someone else’s idea, had an option. However, Bo was stubborn and believed that he was right .He cut off his nose regardless. He could’ve put in Kevin Casey, Michigan’s best throwing quarterback. However,” Kevin was in Bo’s doghouse, in part because he was cocky, a free thinker, and had an unusual lifestyle. Casey could run and throw, and think on his feet.” Unfortunately, for the Wolverines. Bo still wanted to run the ball and Quarterback Tom Slade, as quarterback could not throw the ball effectively in Michigan loss to Stanford 13-12. Bo’s stubbornness or anger was exhibited passively as he withheld putting Casey in the game. Everyone knew, Casey was the better throwing quarterback.

In spite of or because of Bo’s neurotic competitiveness and dominance tendencies, the University of Michigan football, became like Haley’s Comet. It was spectacular, admired and clearly visible for all to view. For 20 years, Bo Schembechler’s Warriors dominated the football world. Similarly, when Michigan football wavered after Lloyd Carr’s retirement, Jim Harbaugh was brought in to resurrect Michigan football. Jim is good, but at this point, the Wolverine faithful are not yet convinced that he is the new Messiah.

Go Blue

References

Horney, K “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time,” WW Norton and Company, Incorporated.

Lieberman, F, “Bo’s Warriors Bo Schembechler and the Transformation of Michigan Football,” Triumph Books.

Bo's Competitiveness Part 3

 Bo’s Warriors remembered the frequency of Bo’s wrath. His hostility, competitive power controlling tenancies and anger was frequently displayed on the practice field. With power and competitive tendencies, we find anger. This suggests that for Bo, football was a life-and-death experience. He had to win, at all costs, regardless of the personal or self-sacrificing costs. It certainly didn’t help that Bo’s competitive players. Initially expressed their resentment toward their coach. In fact, it was as if they had an inhibition towards winning. For the first five games of that 1969 season, the Wolverines record was three wins and two losses. Bo’s seemingly mothering or looking for affection attitude change occurred during the halftime against the University of Minnesota. The Wolverines were behind and Bo, during half time, didn’t rant or rage, like a father, at his players. Instead, he talked to them clearly, directly and stated something to the effect that they were the better team and they shouldn’t allow themselves to lose the game. From the second half on, the team, dominated Minnesota, as well as the remaining teams on their schedule.

Another example of Bo’s hostility, with his competitive tendency, was his conviction that he was right, and would not allow or take in input that was counter to his own. Bo’s 1971 team was undefeated and dominated their opponents with their superlative and crushing rushing attack- “it was 3 yards and a cloud of dust.” They were primed and ready to face Stanford in the 1972 Rose Bowl.  With that victory, they would have won the National Championship, according to Thom Darden. Stanford was good, but not in the same class as the Wolverines. However, to diminish, Michigan’s famed running attack, the” Sanford Indians” stacked the line of scrimmage and placed 10 men on their side of the ball . That meant they had more defensive players on the line than Michigan’s offensive line players. There were just too many “Indians” for Michigan to block.

To Be Continued

Bo's Competitiveness Part 2

When Bo took over the helm of the University Michigan football in 1969, he wanted to defeat, Woody Hayes his hero, his mentor whom he admired greatly. With his competitiveness, and dominance tendencies, he had very little difficulty in mustering all his mental and physical resources required to defeat his friend who was also became his enemy. Bo was hired to coach football at Michigan by athletic director Don Canham. The reason that mattered most for the A.D. was to beat Ohio State’s Woody Hayes. Woody Hayes’ Ohio State Buckeyes demolished, embarrassed and humiliated. Bump Elliott’s 1968 football squad by the score of 50-14. That spanking, by Woody, resulted in the firing of the respected, dapper and beloved Coach Bump Elliott.

Early on in 1969, that Ohio State game was circled on Bo’s blackboard for all to witness. That meant one thing and one thing only -beat OSU. Bo also had his players, during practice, display the number 50 on their helmets. That 50 number symbolized and signified the previous year’s drubbing and humiliation by OSU.  He pushed his players on the practice field, running the same plays over and over until the play was run perfectly. This resulted in excessive practice demands without player mistakes-just ask Reggie McKenzie. When a mistake was made, and someone screwed up, Bo’s hostility or the result  of his fear of failure was apparent. During one practice, Quarterback Jim Betts mishandled the ball that he received from the center with a fumble. Jim didn’t fumble purposely. Bo’s hostility and anger was directed at Jim in front of his teammates. It didn’t matter that, according to Jim, that he was embarrassed nor humiliated. Bo screamed, and kicked Jim in the ass yelling, “Son of a bitch, don’t drop the dam ball again. Run the damn play.” Initially, Jim refused. But, teammate Reggie McKenzie yelled out “rope man” which was Jim’s nickname. It was only then that Jim ran the play, but, halfheartedly and only going through the motions.

Even though Bo had a terrific season and his Wolverines beat Ohio State In that classic upset 24-12, one can argue that the season, took a tremendous toll on Bo. Further, Bo’s pleasure, happiness and well-being did not last long after beating Woody’s Buckeyes or winning the trip to play in the Rose Bowl. Bo, at age 40, in fact, suffered a heart attack on the eve of that USC bowl game.

To Be Continued

Bo's Competitiveness

Competitiveness is very prevalent in our socioeconomic culture. In fact, competition relates to too many of our day-to-day living activities, especially with our interactions with others. This post addresses aspects of the competitiveness of the legendary Bo Schembechler.

With Bo, as a result of his competitive tendencies, he compared himself against all others, regardless of the circumstances. He simply wanted to be ahead, on top or dominant against all others. It didn’t matter as he competed against his two older sisters for the single family bicycle or making that tackle and not letting go of the ball carrier, even though he was dragged, cut and bruised along the way. Secondly, he not only wanted to achieve more than anyone else, or to have greater success, but he also wanted to be exceptional. It just wasn’t enough for him, to be a major-league ball player, he wanted to be the superstar and pitch in game seven, the most important game, of the World Series. This was certainly a fantasy of grandiose proportion. More than likely, he wasn’t able to acknowledge or place any major emphasis on the significance of such an unrealistic fantasy. He was psychologically limited and not insightful in regards to his own underlying dynamics.

Bo wanted to be the best in every possible way and play college football for the Irish, which, at the time, was Notre Dame. Further, with major ambition and competitiveness tendencies, he was greatly sensitive to any barrier or frustration that interfered with his achieving success. Successes, for him, was only winning, while failure or fear of failure was experienced as a humiliation and being perceived as a loser. Also, closely found within a competitive and power controlling attitude was hostility since his emphasis or myopic focus was on victory. That meant defeating and dominating any and all opponents regardless of the situation. Unfortunately, on the playing field, his destructive emotional being tendencies seemed stronger than his constructive emotional being tendencies.  It was more important for Bo to see others defeated and to avoid, perceived failure than to succeed himself. Looking or viewing Bo’s body language from the sidelines was testimony. He didn’t appear to be enjoying himself while on the side lines in the heat of battle. He was limited and unable to complement his players, in games, even though they made spectacular plays.

To Be Continued

Why We Mislead Part 3

  Cognitive linguist George Lakoff, PhD from the University of California, addressed alternative facts regarding Trump’s inauguration crowd claims.  Debunking or calling attention to this claim did not diminish their power because people assess the evidence presented to them through a framework of pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. If the facts do not fit into your cognitive-emotional frame work or if it’s threatening, then it is simply more convenient to label them false news facts. This is similar to the theory of cognitive dissonance. An example of this idea was borne out by Briony Swire-Thompson’s research at the University of Western Australia. This research documented the effectiveness of evidence-based information and the refuting of false beliefs. The study was based on the false statement made by Donald Trump. He stated that vaccines cause autism. It was reported that Trump supporters showed a decidedly stronger belief in the misinformation when it had Donald Trump’s name attached to it. Then, these participants were given a short explanation as to the correct information. There was no relationship between the vaccine and autism. Initially, the participants accepted the fact and acknowledged the truth. However, testing the participants a week later, showed that their beliefs in the misinformation had bounced back to nearly the same original levels.

In summary, there are numerous reasons why we speak untruths. 1. Lying behavior begins early in life. 2. Lying is easy and often there are no serious negative consequences for the behavior. 3. Everyone seems to engage, to some degree, in the behavior, including our “politicians.” 4. It occurs during the evolution of the human brain. 5. For too many, it’s a significant characteristic in their character tendencies 6. Humans are gullible and tend to deceive themselves as well. For more detailed information, read the article in full.

Why We Mislead Part 2

Lying,  is not rare, and most Homo sapiens are very adept at it; lying is easy to do; lies are big and small; and lying to strangers, coworkers, friends and loved ones are typical and frequent. Further, Homo sapiens are terrible at detecting lies. It is believed that the use of exaggeration and/or lies of omission have been part of our culture for a long time, and play good a significant role in the human condition of gullibility. Remember, the Ninth Commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” was purposely written a long time ago and still remains not respected nor possible. Dr. Bella De Paulo, a social psychologist, decades ago, reported that subjects, in her research, lied an average of 1 to 2 times a day; most of the lies were innocuous and with the purpose to hide one’s inadequacies or to protect the feelings of others; some lies were excuses; and further, most people have at some point told one or more serious lies during their lifetime.

It is speculated that lying behavior began shortly after the emergence of language.  “It’s so easy compared to the other ways of gaining power,” stated Dr. Sissela Bok an ethicist at Harvard University. Researchers have also found that Homo sapiens easily believe in lies, in spite of contradictory evidence or facts suggesting otherwise. Because of the productivity for deceiving others, this exposes our vulnerability of receiving false information. Social media has added to society’s inability or difficulty in keeping up with the truth and separating truth from non-truth.

Other research, by Dr. Kang Lee, at the University of Toronto, in the study of children, found that kids become more proficient at lying as they become older. Theory of the Mind is one idea used to explain the phenomena. It is believed that the facility we acquire for understanding the beliefs, intentions and knowledge of others, is when the  child has the ability to put himself in someone else’s shoes . This happens during the evolution and development of the executive function of the brain. They found that two-year-olds, who lied, performed better on tests of theory of the mind and executive function than those who didn’t; and, at age 16 kids that were proficient liars simply out performed poor liars using the same variables.

To Be Continued

Why We Mislead

Why We Mislead

While visiting Veloyce for my overuse injury at his Monster of Massage office, I borrowed his June, 2017 Edition of National Graphic. It was titled “Why We Lie   The science behind our complicated relationship with the truth. This timely article correlated with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s comments regarding Michael Flynn “Arguably, you sold your country out!”

The introduction to the article was about a man named Alexi Santana. His name was a lie. This man’s fabrications resulted in his being accepted for admission to Princeton in the fall of 1989. He told a most interesting fable. Further on, there were statements about the many criminals that lie, deceive and victimize such as financier Bernie Madoff. He employed a Ponzi scheme for his crime. The Ponzi scheme was named after Charles Ponzi who built a pyramid scheme selling international postal reply coupons. Aside from conning investors by promising them, terrific  returns, his scam involved paying one investor with money he collected from others. He was apprehended in 1920.

Past Pres. Richard Nixon lied, to stay in power. He denied having any role in Watergate. In 2016, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that his inauguration turn out, was larger than Pres. Barack Obama’s first one. This lie had to do with his frequent tendency  to enhance his prestige. This tendency is likely an unconscious protection against his self-perception of insignificance. Over and over, he needs to impress others, needs to be admired and needs to be respected. Perhaps a major component of his self-esteem, rests on, being admired and respected. If he doesn’t receive admiration, his self-esteem shrinks. For him, this lying behavior is a consistent and constant ordeal. He’s likely unaware of feeling humiliated because the knowledge of it would be too painful for him. Yes, it’s a protection against feeling insignificant and it is a feeble attempt to inflate his damaged self-esteem.

The National Geographic article went on and cited many examples of others who lied. Examples, such as American swimmer Ryan Lochte in the 2016 Summer Olympics; physicist Jan Hendrik Schon regarding breakthroughs in molecular semiconductor research; Frank Abagnale Jr. the main character in the 2002 movie “ Catch Me If You Can.” This impostor stated “I had to be creative in order to survive. I do and will continue to regret it for the rest of my life.” PT Barnum was cited along with many others who falsified the truth.survive. I do and will continue to regret it for the rest of my life.” PT Barnum was cited along with many others who falsified the truth.

To Be Continued