Who is that masked man?

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

An interesting question, Jaime. 

I can only HOPE it is not Pitino because I imagine he should have better
ways to spend his valuable ($7 mil a season) time. Either that or perhaps
this list IS an inspiration for him, in a Dr. Watson sort of way (a scary
thought). If it's not Pitino however, then it's a pretty cheap shot. I
thought we had Greg on this list to clear up these little mysteries of
identity?

I'll ante up however; I've played hoops since I was 12 or 13 ('76 or '77). 

My folks were in the habit of signing us kids up for town sports leagues
expecting that those leagues would actually teach us how to play the given
sport - LOL! I was six when signed up for hockey (I didn't know how to
skate!) At the try-outs they told 50 of us to skate across the rink - I
managed it with bent ankles scraping across the ice. After waiting the
excruciating 5 minutes for me to painfully scuttle my way over the "coach",
without batting an eye, blew the whistle and told us to do it again -
backwards!! Same with little league - I'd never had a mitt on my hands till
"tryout day". For the hat trick I was signed up for hoops without even
knowing the basics although I had learned to dribble in gym class. I can
still remember our coach (a young kid of about 17) telling us it was our
first game together so we'd keep it simple, just some pick and rolls,
baseline screens, etc. - I don't remember because it was all Greek to me. I
was inserted into a game for the first time at the start of the second half
and promptly got the in-bounds pass and raced for the basket - the wrong
basket because I didn't know that the teams switched after half-time! 

Needless to say, most of my sports knowledge has not been attained in such
a traumatic manner. I played through high school (my town team had four
starters from the school team so as the fifth starter I got a good
education in being unselfish) and have continued to play consistently
(mostly with a collection of colleagues - indeed I was so consistent that
my colleagues came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true love when I
missed a few sessions after having met my wife) up until two years ago when
I moved back to the New England area. 

*************

Now, as to the REAL question behind the bogus "question": what right do
non-experts have to criticize experts? 

As a prof in political science perhaps I get to confront this question a
bit more frequently than the rest of the members of the list. After all,
this question is central to whether it is possible to have any form of
democracy in an age of specialization. (If RP thinks he has it tough he
should try my job - my "expertise" get questioned every day, as it should
in a democracy.) 

What right do people have to question policy experts in any field? in
foreign affairs? nuclear energy? taxes? Pick your topic, it's essentially
the same question. I think regardless of topic, the same answer applies: no
matter how arcane or difficult a given field of knowledge may be, there
always exist certain commonly understood standards of what constitutes
"success" that non-experts can understand and appreciate. Along with such
standards of success are also basic principles that guide the thinking of
experts and non-experts alike. I don't need to be an engineer to figure out
if my vacuum, computer, automobile etc., is not working properly. I may
need to be an engineer to fix it or I may be able to diagnose the problem
but still require technical expertise to effect the solution. 

How can experts, who are trained especially for the task, make mistakes
that non-experts might not? A book by the name of "Groupthink", which if
memory from my prelims serves correctly, was by a fellow with the last name
Janis and analyzes how experts functioned in setting policy during the Viet
Nam conflict. The community of "experts" is typically a small one, and
certain (perhaps incorrect) perceptions can become accepted as true and
then become self-reinforcing, since they become the "shibboleth" for
deciding if one is truly a member of the "expert community" or not. In this
way expert opinion becomes rigid and resistant to change, indeed it becomes
more a matter of "in-group" "out-group" dynamics than the search for truth
or success.

I mentioned earlier another example of expertise (and ego) becoming an
obstacle rather than a vehicle of success: the well-known case of Ferdinand
De Lesseps. He was the pre-eminent expert in the construction of canals -
after all he designed and managed the building of the Suez. Who could
question him in Panama? We can look now and say - even though none of us
may be "experts" - that it is obvious that Panama is not Egypt (Hmmm,
college vs. pro ball?), but who could then? Who dared question his
credentials? Yet we know that in the end he failed miserably in Panama -
not despite but because (1) his "expertise" made him beyond reproach and
(2) his ego, fed to monstrous size by his previous successes, "excused" him
from scrutinizing the faulty assumptions at the basis of his own
engineering "Xs and Os".

Why should non-experts be bothered to question or examine the decisions of
experts? Because it is often the non-experts who bear the burden of
cleaning up the mess made by experts. Who paid the price in Viet Nam? The
"best and brightest" who devised the policy and assured us that it was
correct? Or the poor slobs and their families and loved ones who were sent
over to execute the policy? Who paid the price in Chernobyl? Who's paying
for the tickets at the Fleet? The mental anguish (the "crying") that floods
this list whenever the team under-performs badly is a high enough price it
would seem. I don't think it is any longer a mystery that people seek
psychological release from sports - after all that is why someone like RP
can command such royal treatment (how ironic, in some sense he owes his
fortune to the same dynamic that produces "the fellowship of the
miserable"). So it should not be surprising if people endure anguish when
their team "fails" in one way or another. Nor should it be surprising that
people seek to use their intellects to address such an area of concern and
distress - even if they are not "experts". To condemn people for that is
technocratic elitist baloney and (deep breath) - dare I say it - "downright
un-American".

-Tom Murphy

> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:01:43 +0800
> From: "Jaime Salud Castillo, Jr." <jaims@philonline.com>
> Subject: Re: experience?
> 
> hey, is this really RP???  or a sick joke of some sort?
> 
> Jaims
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Mrrickpitino@aol.com>
> To: <celtics@igtc.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 7:31 AM
> Subject: experience?
> 
> 
> > Fans,
> > Don't take this personally, I just need to know.
> > How many of you have basketball experience?
> > What was the highest level of playing or coaching experience you have
had?
> >
> > rp.