OT - Gladwell Article on Football Head Injuries
This came out a while ago and I am not sure if it has already been posted.
If you have some time during these slow news days, have a read, any football fan will find it extremely interesting.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?cu…
December 30th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
Concussions are a serious matter. If you get too many you will suffer long term Dain Bramage.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^
Bramage sounds like something that's popular on MSU's campus.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^
On a related note, I wish the media would stop speaking of "mild" concussions. When you're concussed, that's a serious injury, period.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
Sure, if you're a pansy. You obviously never learned anything from Varsity Blues.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
for introducing me to the term "concussed". And yes I agree. Players should not suffer a concussion one game and be allowed to play the next. Unless it's Florida State, in which case it doesn't really matter.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^
face it. we all are addicted to a game that is violent and cannot be made safe. we are willing to live with this. there is no new helmet and no new rule changes that will alter this fact appreciably . some counter, "well, if not football, what would these boys/young men do for fun instead, and might that not be even more dangerous?" maybe. concussion is brain damage, or death of a number of brain cells, which is generally agreed to be irreversible. "minor" implies that there are no detectable residual neurological deficits. more serious closed head injuries , or accumulated multiple minor ones, result in permanent and obvious neurological functional loss (e.g. memory and other mentation, learning, reasoning, abstract thinking deficits, motor coordination loss, double vision or disturbed vision, abnormal involuntary movement disorder, e.g. m. ali with pugilistic parkinson's , motor weakness, sensory loss, mood and behavioral disturbances, bowel and bladder problems, etc.) in short, the brain does everything and is everything that makes us, us. and losing even small parts of it can be devastating, for life. the brain should be cherished and protected as it is our most precious (some would argue, second most precious!) organ. the kids that we obsess over are in fact our modern day gladiators. we as a society, and as individuals, are willing to sacrifice their safety and well being for our entertainment. head injury, spinal cord injury, and permanent bone and joint injuries are the price the players pay to take this sacred field of combat. nothing really changes. make no mistake, there is an ugly, dark side to all this glory. go blue!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
Players are making a concious decision to play and accept the risk that goes with it. I know I did.
Spectators do not sacrifice the safety of the player...the player does. Spectators can not force someone to play the game. They only cheer for them when they do. I don't know of any fan that would dismiss a player if they decided to stop playing for health reasons. Those that would...well...that's a different problem all together, and equally concerning as the concussion issue.
Some might argue that spectators fund brutality by paying to see the game. But this does not equate to forced competition. The player can still decide not to play and not to take the money as a result.
If the player determines that money is more important than brain cells, that is their choice. Free will and whatnot.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:33 PM ^
I read this article a few months ago and was slightly enraged by Gladwell's assertions. Not about whether or not concussions are a serious issue that seems to be largely ignored by most collegiate and pro sports...that part seems pretty obvious and is an issue that deserves serious attention.
What I was frustrated about is Malcolm's "angle" of trying to tie the inhumane nature of dog fighting with that of football. Basically, he asserts that those that enjoy football are no better than those that enjoy a good dog fight, since both are guilty of not having humane concern for the players or the dogs that injure themselves for our amusement. Bullshit says I.
Dogs don't have the choice of being in the fight. Players do. Players are well aware of the risks and consequences and can use this information to make an informed and concious decision to participate. Dogs obviously can't and do not.
Not saying it isn't sad that some players subject themselves to irreparable harm, only that comparing them to dogs and us to hoods is more than a stretch...it's a flimsy angle whose obvious disconnect is deliberately glossed over by someone who is supposed to be an intellectual.
For shame...
December 30th, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
This is becoming an increasingly flimsy supposition. I can't admit to reading much of Gladwell's stuff, but the recent Pinker takedown of his work and Gladwell's extremely weak response (particularly the bit about "igon" (i.e. eigan) values) have left me with a pretty low opinion of him. And his writing on the "quarterback problem" is god-awful. So yeah, I'm not too surprised that he would gloss over obvious volitional differences in service of a weak argument.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^
I only wish that Schutt could have developed a helmet that saved Justin Borens brain from letting his mouth say all that stupid stuff as he was leaving.