11 Nov '09 15:42>
Originally posted by trev33That argument falls down, though, if you accept that the person listening to commentators is also able to think for himself. Good commentators don't just tell you what's happening: they help you improve your understanding of the game.
you're not getting it at all. the original point we're talking about is that people who have played the game have a better understanding of it than others who never have, while [b]both watch the game.
but i would say in that experiment that you would get one guy who is talking about things he was told to say by the tv people and another who has played ...[text shortened]... who has never played will know nothing of that and imo will lose any argument over a play.[/b]
Take another example. I play cricket: I'm a swing bowler. I can also explain to other people how to swing the ball. But this is not because I can do it...my natural action tends to just work, so it's difficult to teach that. No - I can explain it for two reasons:
1. I've seen experts on television explain how it works
2. I understand the theoretical aerodynamics (not entirely necessary, but hey...)
Playing the game is a short-cut to understanding the game. But it's not the only way - there is no real limitation to what can be learned via observation. Ask any educational theorist - different people learn things in different ways, and not everyone learns by doing.