The Right Stuff

Years ago, Tom Wolfe wrote a book about the first US astronauts and what it was that made them want to take these incredible risks and do these dangerous things. This post's title is the same title he used, for good reason. I was thinking about what it takes to make a good sports official. I've linked to pages that talk about what makes a good official, and I've met lots of guys in officiating who really are good officials...and many who definitely are not. There's truth in all of these pages, and some intangible things that aren't directly mentioned, as well.

Yes, you have to have a very thick skin. You have to be able to handle people calmly and well, and you have to have good judgment. You have to be able to apply rules quickly, consistently, and (most importantly) correctly. You have to take time to learn the rules and continue studying them. You have to appear confident and be able to sell your abilities, in every way possible. You have to handle criticism but also know and understand when the criticism is legitimate, as when it comes from fellow officials you know and trust, as compared to when it comes from mere fans (who, frankly, don't usually know what they're talking about). You learn very early in officiating that "perception is reality" and that one truth plays a part in nearly everything you do in your duties as an official. You can also use that to your advantage, and I do. I work hard to keep my appearance neat, clean, and professional for any games I work. Clean-shaven face, sweat-stain-free uniform and hat, clean and polished (if possible) shoes, well-maintained quality equipment, good communication, on-time arrival for my scheduled games, hustling and vigorous activity on the field, clear calls and rulings that are timely but not so quick that it appears I'm guessing or not thinking, all of these factor in to how I appear to the people involved. It's hard work, but for some people, it comes very easily. Those people have The Right Stuff.

I know guys who are super-sharp on the rules, and who know mechanics forward and backward...but are still terrible officials, because even with all that incredible knowledge, they just don't do the critical thing to be a good official. They don't keep their stuff in good shape, so they don't look good. Their timing is too quick on their calls, so they look like they're not thinking about what they're doing (even if they're right). They don't handle arguments and confrontations properly, being too hot-headed. They don't communicate their rulings well, so they appear to be making things up as they go. The most common failing of otherwise "good" officials is what I would call "excessive legalism," meaning they will call correct rules in incorrect situations, forgetting that the spirit of the rules is to provide fair and equal play, so that a team or player can't get an unsportsmanlike advantage of his/their opponent. They might not have all of these failings, or even more than one. Usually, though, one of these failings is more than enough, and even the best officials sometimes struggle with some of these. Those who can't overcome these failings, though, do NOT have The Right Stuff.

And that's the crux of this. I was originally going to just talk about what makes a good official, mostly because it interests me and because I like thinking and talking about it. But as I was putting the post together in my head, I realized that it merely touched on the edge of a much bigger picture, and a key failing in our society today, and especially in the educational section of our society. Bear with me while I explain.

Every profession has a Right Stuff to it, characteristics about it that mesh well with an individual's personal traits, habits, skills, and talents. I have spoken before about how I am good at taking fundamental rules and applying them consistently, and that this makes me good at technical and mechanical work...and officiating, as it happens. I'm also able to project confidence (even when I don't always feel confident). Heidi is wonderful at caring for children; she's good at it because she has the patience, thoughtfulness, creativity, and quick thinking that is key in dealing with small children. The thing is, unless they have some sort of mental deficiency, everyone has a set of innate abilities, aptitudes, and character traits, which translate over time into skills...and usually, into interests. This is their "Right Stuff." The astronauts' "Right Stuff" was adventurousness, courage, incredible piloting skill, meticulousness, physical stamina, and coolness under fire. This made them perfect for what was needed in humanity's initial drive into the great unknown of outer space.

Every job or profession has special "Right Stuff" requirements, and that every person has their own "Right Stuff." The key, though, is matching people's "Right Stuff" with jobs' "Right Stuff". This is sort of implicit, understood knowledge in human civilization. People are happiest when they're doing something they like and/or that they're good at. When people are happy with their work, they work harder and are more productive. More productive workers grow business, which is good for the economy and good for everyone. Everyone feels successful and fulfilled, and this makes everyone happier. Conversely, when people are doing something they are not good at, or don't enjoy, or both, they're not happy. Unhappy workers are less productive, which creates inefficiency and drags down their organization or endeavor. They also drive away customers, which hurts the business. Enough of this drags on the economy, further increasing unhappiness.

Sure, these are generalizations. I have met people that are really good at something, yet can't stand doing it. For example, an old friend was actually a very good gold and platinum smith, which you would expect to be a very lucrative profession. He really didn't enjoy doing it, though, and now works as a teacher at a local charter school. Generally, though, people enjoy doing things they're good at, and vice versa; and they're unhappy doing things they're not good at, and vice versa. So, you'd think it would behoove us as a civilized race to work very hard at making sure what people do well (and thus, what they usually enjoy doing) mesh with what needs to be done. Yet there are millions of people who toil in jobs they are not good at, or hate, or both, leading to horrible inefficiencies and terribly unhappy human beings.

As a society, and particularly in our educational system, we are not good at helping people find what their "Right Stuff" is. Some school systems, mostly notably Germany's (and there may be others of which I am not aware), actually make an effort to steer children toward things they appear better suited for. However, most Western-style education focuses on the idyllic but woefully outdated ideal of the "well-rounded person". So we waste time throwing 20 different subjects at students through the course of their entire scholastic career, and we give them very little guidance toward where their aptitudes really are. We also spend a great deal of time on the meme "you can do anything you want, if you just set your mind to it" and "you can be whatever you want to be!" These are true, but there's also a tremendous amount of willpower involved (the "if you just set your mind to it" part), and most kids don't have the willpower to see that through. (Many adults don't either, for that matter.) To go back to my own situation, I was nearly 30 before I realized what my personal meta-strengths were, and by then, I was pretty much set on my life's road. I think that's too long, especially since these aspects of my personality undoubtedly showed themselves much earlier on in my life, and if someone had helped me see them, I'd probably be even more successful today than I am. As it was, I had a family I was responsible for and couldn't have easily changed course for something that suited me better, if I had made bad choices earlier on.

I'm not saying that, if we see a kid is good in math, that we ditch history or art or any other subjects; I'm simply saying that we make sure the kid gets all the math he can stand. He'll KNOW he's good at math, and he'll enjoy it (a kid ENJOYING school? What a concept!). Then, knowing he's good in math, he'll probably take an interest in science, too, so we give him broader exposure to that, as well. That will lead to good things. If a kid's talents are toward social studies, send them that way. If it's toward creative works like art or music, provide them guidance there. If the child shows intangible strengths like leadership or organization or meticulousness, we should make note of that, like a "permanent record". It's incumbent on teachers and parents to work together to see what a child's personality and physical talents are, and steer them toward activities and goals that are in line with those talents. As time goes on, the child will see his personality strengths, his intellectual strengths, and his physical strengths, and will be able go down a road that takes the most advantage of those. They will find their own "Right Stuff". He'll still get other subjects to provide context to his primary abilities, but they would be greatly de-emphasized as his education progresses.

So where does that lead? Well, when the kid is older, maybe about to hit high school, he'll have a better idea of what he's capable of. He will still be able to take any classes he feels like, but the requirements will be that he continues down a path that will make him happiest while maximizing his potential productivity once he enters society as an adult. He can look at college prep, if that's where things point. Or he can get into a skilled trade, shop classes or the like. Or he can focus on something more directly business-oriented, like management or sales. Or he can prepare for more classical artistic training for dance or music or painting. The point being, the synergy created all around for him would only be positive and he'd have a great idea of where he could be heading. And besides, once he's an adult, he could still embark on some other path; that's what college is for, after all. We would never be dictating to anyone what they SHOULD be doing. However, if he goes it alone, on his own, he'll still have a MUCH better understanding of where his strengths and weaknesses are, and that will help him connect with a career that will suit him much better. Every set of characteristics should lead an individual toward several potential career opportunities, and if they have a better understanding of themselves, they can make better decisions that are more likely to make them happy, and to be productive in society.

This system would not remove all troublesome folks from society, but it would work to reduce the risks of kids who don't receive guidance, never find what they're really good at (or if they do, no guidance on how to make it work for them), and end up wandering or appearing lazy or feckless. There will always be people who just aren't suited for work of any kind in spite of their abilities and talents, and we'll make do with them the best we can, as we already do. But I bet we'd have a lot fewer of those people.

Kids do love to learn, if you give them the right environment and the right incentives. I'm just afraid that we put too much emphasis on kids getting good grades in everything, when we should probably just make sure they get good grades in the stuff that matches well with their "Right Stuff". High schools today do provide "guidance counselors" but they're not taken nearly as seriously as they should be, and by the time most students get to high school and actually talk to a guidance counselor, they still have no idea who they really are. Sometimes, with the truly amazing people like Tiger Woods or Steven Hawking, they are able to follow a road that maximizes their talents to their maximum potential. I think we could do better to help those people find and connect with their best parts.

I'll probably never live to see a system like this. But I think it would work much better than our gigantic mish-mash we have today.