Non-news is classified in the dictionary as communication, information, or entertainment that is not newsworthy. We see some of that on actual news outlets, but my attention here is more toward the posting on social media of events that not only bear no significance more broadly, but also don't seem to bear any significance even to the person posting it. 

If you visited a new coffee shop or wanted to share your morning routine or that you're dreading laundry again, great. I think I question when it seems not even to have any value to the person posting it. I'm asking myself, "why are you posting this? What's the value you want to see? Do you want attention, do you want to share the fact that these are your shoes today? Who benefits from this? Is this just an idle use of your time, are you trying to communicate something?"

I think a counterexample one could bring up is that this is the purpose of social media. I'm not arguing that one should only share major life events or actual news stories or their reactions to those news stories and events or information. I get off the train in that some shared pieces of experience seem so routine that I question their purpose altogether. 

But hey! People want to see your life and know what you're up to! They feel like they get to connect with you more when they see you shopping for groceries, tying your shoes, waking up in the morning, etc. I'm not totally sure though. If I set up an Instagram live and put it three feet away from me at all times, would you watch it? And I think this is the case for most people, we really aren't interested in the minutiae of people's lives. You just wouldn't watch the Truman Show of someone's life. 

At the core when you share something, you're saying:

  • I think other people would enjoy this
  • I'm trying to make people feel something
  • I'm trying to relate to people
  • I'm trying to give/receive information (asking for opinions is included here)
  • I enjoy this, and you might too
  • This tells you my whereabouts or activities, and I'm expecting some reaction
  • I think this will help market something
  • I think this will help reinforce a brand image
  • And so on.

You're saying, "I think this has value". Non-news is devoid of attachment to interpretation, reactionary quality, or any importance at all. It's all the in-between moments in your life that you still live and experience but aren't news. Just ask yourself why you're sharing something, that's all. 

Bryce LewisComment

It can be easy to fall into the trap of things with capital letters, I think. By that I mean that we tend to establish a word, concept, or relation to something and hold on to those as immutable firm things. Things that don't change. This is my Relationship, this is my Personality, this is my powerlifting Technique. This is "How I get stronger", and so on. I think we like to think in these terms because, like a dictionary, you can just flip to that page again in your mind and see the term or concept there, just as you left it and feel a sense of internal consistency that I think we all try to keep. 

In fact, I think we very much try to avoid inconsistency to the point of lying to ourselves at times. Anyway, I mainly just wanted to speak to the idea that change is natural, and should probably be expected more often. In powerlifting, we view technique with a capital T in at least two ways. One, that there is an archetype for a good squat, good bench press, and good deadlift. That you can have a list and check off certain attributes and arrive at "good" or "perfect". Second, that technique is also supposed to be the same across all loads and demands. My technique at 50% is the same as my technique at 80%, 85%, 90%, and so on. I think both of these are off, and we need to be more comfortable with change internally and externally. 

The problems are that as a result of thinking of these things in constant, unchanging terms, we impose our ideas on others and impose them on ourselves, closing ourselves off from the option to think otherwise. Systems are messy. I think it's better to think of technique more like a quantum probabilistic map of finding an electron, for instance. "Here's where we are more likely to find good technique, and here's where we have a 95% confidence interval of finding great technique. Here, great technique is nearly certain to be found." But just knowing that it's less certain, that there are multiple parameters and individual differences, and that there are differences between loads, reps, etc. And that's okay.

Bryce Lewis
Risk/Reward in Athlete Expectations

I think that overly hyping expectations/outcome is a high-risk move. Let's pretend you're working with an athlete, and you tell them you know they can hit 9/9 and that XYZ numbers are for sure in the books. Or, you tell them you believe in them to win a specific competition, to nab a 750 pull, and so on: extrinsic accomplishments, essentially.

One last example is that you build momentum from an athlete continuing to hit PRs, and praise them for continuing to hit PRs. You set an expectation that they will continue to do so in the future. 

I think this is a somewhat dangerous practice because athletes can get a HUGE boost in confidence if they meet the mark or continue rounds of successes, but experience an equally large drop in confidence/motivation if they miss the mark and feel they've let you down. I know loss aversion fits in here, I'm just not quite sure how. 

Anyway, making it more about praising the athlete and their practice, their internal strides, lasting qualities and substantive changes has more bang for your buck in the long game. 

Bryce LewisComment
Negativity Bias

I just started reading Hardwiring Happiness, by Rick Hanson and got to a section on the negativity bias and how it shapes conscious experience based on evolutionary past. It's an idea I've seen before in looking at psychological biases and elsewhere in printed material from Daniel Kahneman. Essentially, that from an evolutionary standpoint, it was much more important to avoid negative experiences (ie. death by predator, dangerous areas, poisonous food, conflicts, and the like) than to find positive experiences. While both were important, the avoidance and vigilance of negative experience shaped the brain in such a way that we are wired now to consistently value negative experiences stronger in memory. 

As Hanson writes, if your boss gives you 20 compliments and one criticism, it's likely the criticism to stick with you. Similar examples abound in life; we are stuck, evolutionarily speaking, valuing negative more than positive in shaping experience. I remember one time I had immense and painful stomach pains immediately after having a protein shake made from pea protein. For a year or so I had been fine drinking the same protein shake, but that one bad experience made me throw away the rest of the powder and never have pea protein again. I'm sure you've had some experience like that with another food. I'm apt to weigh negative more than the hundreds of protein shakes I'd already had that had no ill effect on me. 

I think some of this carries over into every domain of life, and I wonder exactly how it plays out for the athletic self. Controlled pain is almost a part of growth, but we don't really view that as a negative experience. If I hurt myself squatting, I may come to the conclusion that the whole way I was squatting is wrong and I need to change/fix everything. It might just have been the case that I was a little loose in the movement, or some muscle was a little tighter than usual. 

A single bad rep or attempt in competition may weigh more heavily on us than the hundreds of reps that preceded it, causing an almost myopic focus on the wrongs we did, instead of celebrating all of the successes. It's hard to say "hey that's just your evolutionary biology at work" but I really think a large piece of it is.

Hanson posits some ways to change this, and you're welcome to read his book here.

Bryce LewisComment