The need for term definitions?

[Tricia]

I agree with so much that has been said, particularly @James nailed it IMHO. I want to stress the fact that movement based teaching and analysis is not an alternative to the outcome based approach. They are complementary. I am learning, not teaching, skiing. But I learn faster when my instructors use a combination of both.

The other thing to stress is that ambiguities are problematic. As @john petersen and @Monique were alluding, instructors in a same institution (say, PSIA, USST, CSIA, etc) will have catchy terms for complex concepts. While those serve them well when they work together, they mean little, on their own, to people outside their circle.

I would say, most of us (all?) think Mikaela Shiffrin's skiing is exemplary. How we call her upper body's behavior is subjective. But we want to do something that resembles that.

So, going on a long conversation, back and forth, whether your upper body should be quiet, or steady, or controlled, or counter ... is futile.

Yes!

Well, it does serve pugski google analytics to a point, but we'd much rather see a new healthy discussion instead of a debate that seems to circle, as if its doing down the drain.

 

[Mendieta]

Yes!

Well, it does serve pugski google analytics to a point, but we'd much rather see a new healthy discussion instead of a debate that seems to circle, as if its doing down the drain.

Yup, quality over quantity. Ski talk at a higher level.

 

[Don in Morrison]

Sometimes, the discussions in the instruction threads seem to look like "...kdjfow odk s als swoqpgitf dnovairld wpweubr slfpewng...", so that it's impossible to translate the written words to a movement pattern you can attempt on the hill.

Video helps, but even then, the written words don't always translate to what you see in the video. At least you can watch it and then try to copy the movements.

Sometimes it takes a video with slo-mo/stop-motion, repetition, lines and arrows and whatever to get things across so you can wrap your head around what's going on.

 

[Tricia]

Sometimes, the discussions in the instruction threads seem to look like "...kdjfow odk s als swoqpgitf dnovairld wpweubr slfpewng...",

Which is why we often hear comments like, "I never go into the instruction forums"

 

[Mendieta]

Which is why we often hear comments like, "I never go into the instruction forums"

OTOH, here goes an honest comment from an intermediate. Even at the beginning of this season, the Technical Forums were some of my favorites in Pugski. Accessible, readable, super useful.

When Epic went down, we got a large influx of new people, some of who were used to a different type of conversation. We are working hard to prevent falling into that trap, mostly offline conversations, of course We truly appreciate everybody's cooperation as we go back to normal.

 

[Tricia]

OTOH, here goes an honest comment from an intermediate. Even at the beginning of this season, the Technical Forums were some of my favorites in Pugski. Accessible, readable, super useful.

I hope we can keep it that way.

 

[markojp]

Thanks for your efforts, guys! Hugely appreciated.

 

[karlo]

definitions to clarify what an instructor means.

I think definition is required amongst the parties communicating. So, if it is in the context of instructors speaking to each other nationally, PSIA would be the place to set a definition. Just as an example, it might define static quiet and still to be a completely unmoving upper body, and define dynamic quiet and still as being in the context of the COM travelling in an intended path regardless of what the body parts are doing. If its a matter of an instructor and student communicating, they have the benefit of the immediate context and it will be easy to come to an understanding of the definition, without even setting it to words. Finally, when communicating in a forum, it's like the PSIA example; but, folks need to agree on definition, including perhaps the subtleties, otherwise they're just talking across each other, not to each other. Then, folks take short cuts, get flippant (guilty as charged), frustrated, etc., then the trainwreck. Or, maybe not even really a trainwreck, just meaningless banter and confusion, as if the air had gotten thin and no one is thinking straight.

Look at contracts, technical or regulatory standards, many things. Definitions are the first order of priority, and care is given to be clear. One doesn't even have to agree on the definitions; one just has to accept them to be part of the conversation, and perhaps define a new term for their twist of the concept.

 

[Tricia]

This has turned into a great discussion all on its own.
So, the question(s) can be two fold.

• How do we define terms and movements for a national (Example CSIA, PSIA, etc), so that coaches can get a grasp on what is expected to understand for the organization?
• How do we define terms and movements on a site like this so that the average lay person (not just the instructors) get a grasp on what's being said?

Keeping in mind(as Phil says) when you're answering a question on a site like this, its not just for the members who are participating, its also for the 1000's of people who find it on the web, read it and may never join to ask further questions.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Creating consistent definitions requires participants being willing to look up what the definition is. Then they have to be willing to use the term as defined, even if the definition is different from what they are used to. Are people likely to do that?

Contributing to a ski forum functions as a pleasant diversion from real life for many of us. Doing what's necessary to use words with consistent definitions may feel like too much "work" when posting on the forum is supposed to be a light diversion, a welcome break, a pleasant pastime.

Many technical thread participants, IME, don't read the preceding posts before having their first say in a thread. This is especially the case when the thread is long. When they encounter the thread, they respond directly to the thread title. Or they skim preceding posts fast then post. They have a life going on beyond the ski forum and only have a few spare minutes to devote to posting in an online forum. Checking a glossary to confirm that words are being used consistently isn't in the cards for them.

Some people may assume that checking a glossary before posting implies they don't know what they are talking about.

If someone, a moderator for instance, or just a frequent reader, were to take up the task of reminding everyone of the glossary definition for terms that might be at the core of unnecessary disagreements, that person might be seen as an unwelcome nag bordering on arrogant.

Disclaimer: I'd like to see an in-depth glossary on this site, and see people refer to it consistently. I just don't have much hope that people would do it.

 

[markojp]

This has turned into a great discussion all on its own.
So, the question(s) can be two fold.

• How do we define terms and movements for a national (Example CSIA, PSIA, etc), so that coaches can get a grasp on what is expected to understand for the organization?
• How do we define terms and movements on a site like this so that the average lay person (not just the instructors) get a grasp on what's being said?

Keeping in mind(as Phil says) when you're answering a question on a site like this, its not just for the members who are participating, its also for the 1000's of people who find it on the web, read it and may never join to ask further questions.

I don't think it's possible. Unless or until people think and write with the assumption that they'll meet and ski with other participants, there's bound to be a level of expediency commensurate with a lack of respect. I DO think that with great moderation and clearly defined posting perameters (that you have), it's possible, but it's going to be a lot of effort for the mods.

 

[Don in Morrison]

I go in from the perspective of one who has had one, one hour lesson on a plastic-covered wooden ramp in 1969, a week after my first on-snow experience. I had rudimentary instruction from my stepdad, which got me up through stem turns, and after that, I learned everything entirely by chasing people who were better than me down the hill. At least I feel like I'm somewhat better off than the newbie who got dropped off at the top of the hill by his friends with a "see you at the bottom," before they took off.

If someone puts up a video, illustrating what they are describing, in an instruction thread, I get way more out of it than if they just try to describe various body motions with terminology that doesn't always connect with the mental image I'm trying to form.

 

[karlo]

Doing what's necessary to use words with consistent definitions may feel like too much "work" when posting on the forum is supposed to be a light diversion,

For sure. And the benefits of definitions hits up against, as you also said, the practicality of moderating it. So, then is it best if participants of a forum simply try to understand what someone is trying to convey, and not debate the semantics? It actually isn't too hard, within a single thread, for participants' to adapt a term to a particular meaning for the purpose of that thread. Isn't that what's happening when an instructor and student are face to face?

 

[razie]

I would say, most of us (all?) think Mikaela Shiffrin's skiing is exemplary. How we call her upper body's behavior is subjective. But we want to do something that resembles that.

So, going on a long conversation, back and forth, whether your upper body should be quiet, or steady, or controlled, or counter ... is futile.

Well... someone still has to explain to you how she does what you see and you'll still have to understand it, in order to do it...

I think that, as long as the argument stays civil and cool, we do get to see many points of view during these discussions and sometimes that is beneficial.

 

[karlo]

How do we define terms and movements for a national (Example CSIA, PSIA, etc), so that coaches can get a grasp on what is expected to understand for the organization?

Woops. Hit post early and have to edit to finish.

There are many models to go by. For example the technical committees of ASTM or IPC.

Very generally speaking, a governing technical board determines, perhaps from member solicitation, the need of a standard. It solicits membership to participate in a technical committee. Some members actually contribute in a drafting committee. Most members register and watch the drafts and enter feedback. When the committee feels a draft is ready for approval, it solicits a vote from members who expressed interest, those who registered. Once released to the general membership, there will always be suggestions for improvement or change. If serious or numerous enough, the process restarts, to create Revision 2. Many variations in this theme, and far more detail, but that's the gist.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Well... someone still has to explain to you how she does what you see and you'll still have to understand it, in order to do it...
I think that, as long as the argument stays civil and cool, we do get to see many points of view during these discussions and sometimes that is beneficial.

For sure. And the benefits of definitions hits up against, as you also said, the practicality of moderating it. So, then is it best if participants of a forum simply try to understand what someone is trying to convey, and not debate the semantics? It actually isn't too hard, within a single thread, for participants' to adapt a term to a particular meaning for the purpose of that thread. Isn't that what's happening when an instructor and student are face to face?

Yes, yes! That's exactly what's happening in person during a teaching session on snow. It's amazing how the teacher's words get twisted in the minds of the students right there as the words are being said. Misunderstandings happen despite the demos going on. If a student is having problems doing the thing being taught, the teacher won't know whether or not it has to do with a verbal misunderstanding (or range of motion issue, or boot fit, lack of proprioception or strength, etc.) unless the student is asked to explain in words what they are being instructed to do.

I've found online technical disagreements very informative. Those disagreements reveal the hotspots in the skiing world. It's good to know that kind of stuff, especially for readers working on instructor certification. Personal attacks accompanying those disagreements are a separate issue. Food fights can be fun to watch but they can be quite unpleasant for the participants.

Alternatively, everyone could agree with each other in the technical forums. That kind of consistency creates a different type of forum. To shape such a forum, there would need to be very strong heavy-handed leadership banning anyone who pushed any idea or belief that didn't synch with the reigning orthodoxy. I don't think this forum wants that to be its model. Some people like that kind of thing, though. When I first started skiing, I wanted that kind of authoritative consistency in the technical talk. Not any more.

 

[Tricia]

Well... someone still has to explain to you how she does what you see and you'll still have to understand it, in order to do it...

I think that, as long as the argument stays civil and cool, we do get to see many points of view during these discussions and sometimes that is beneficial.

Okay, but who's going to determine whether using the words, still, quiet or disciplined are the right words to get across to one specific person, or are we talking to the wider audience of readers?
The point is, someone(can't remember who without looking back) nit picked the use of the term "quiet upper body", and stated that it meant static and would imply that the skier isn't dynamic.
For me, the term works well and I have no misunderstanding of being static.
Who's to say one word is better than the other when they all are intended for the same instruction?
Subjective or not?

 

[Zentune]

Tricia, I am the one that brought up the "quiet objection" I think

Didn't mean to have it come across as a judgment against anyone, their teaching, or their skiing though. Just trying to convey that words can be deceiving and are limited at best at describing *movement, which is what skiing is about. Truth be told, I really try to stay away from ANY one word descriptors, especially when training instructors, because I have the time, we often do all day training sessions, so there is not a huge need for brevity...

If I use them with students (and I do sometimes) I make it clear what I mean by the term. But that's not to say that another instructor somewhere else may not contradict my definition with that very same student...and therein lies another portential rub in regards to one word descriptors. This is why I really try to be movement specific and check for understanding so all is clear.

Long story short, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then what is ONE word worth?

zenny

 

[razie]

Okay, but who's going to determine whether using the words, still, quiet or disciplined are the right words to get across to one specific person, or are we talking to the wider audience of readers?
The point is, someone(can't remember who without looking back) nit picked the use of the term "quiet upper body", and stated that it meant static and would imply that the skier isn't dynamic.
For me, the term works well and I have no misunderstanding of being static.
Who's to say one word is better than the other when they all are intended for the same instruction?
Subjective or not?

Oops - I may have started us down that path of me-no-likee quiet/still ... but you bring a very good point: I don't know if we need a determination that we all agree to - probably that won't happen outside an official structure like say CSIA, which would have to find a specific vocabulary, commonly applied by their members.

If you wanted to establish the "pugski" encyclopedia or vocabulary (like epic had Bob's), you could make a determination, just like I did on my site. In fact, what you'll find on my site, when you go on a specific subject is different points of view, collected from a bunch of books and all over the internet. I have my preferred approach, but I also present other points of view. Sometimes this aids in creating a better mental model, sometimes it doesn't - YMMV . Here's for instance what you get if you look for "quiet":

We counteract the turning of the skis by twisting the upper body the opposite way, from the hips. The result is "separation" or "quiet upper body" - as the upper body appears to be still while the skis are turning.
​

But in the context of a forum discussion though, especially given the international audience and varying level of experience, I think it's more about "here's my experience with this thing" and "here are my thoughts on this thing" and everyone make their own determination. If someone manages to change my mind, that's awesome. If I manage to change someone's mind, that's awesome, but otherwise, we at least collect points of view.

cheers

 

[ScotsSkier]

If we have to determine a list of definitions to rely on, then, by definition, we have already lost the plot....