11–20 of 257 posts
Well, I stopped reading when it said that Federer ”has been choking” , losing due to a ”mental frailty” . It told me everything I need to know that there is nothing serious to be read and learned in this article.
You might learn to think for yourself and that would be bad for us.
It would be nice if the submitter posted a non-pay walled link.
You might learn to think for yourself and that would be bad for us.
If you read the article, that's not at all what it's about. In tech, the issue being discussed is closer to what's commonly termed "analysis paralysis". Sometimes you just have to act on your instincts (honed by experience, knowledge, and study) and act rather than looking for a larger pattern or perfect solution.
Well, I stopped reading when it said that Federer ”has been choking” , losing due to a ”mental frailty” . It told me everything I need to know that there is nothing serious to be read and learned in this article.
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)
EDIT: Actually the article is from 2012, so I assume its because many of Federer's best years were still ahead of him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)
Perhaps OP meant that he had been dealing with a knee injury, and that doesn't have much to do with "mental frailty" at all: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30821027/roger-federe... EDIT: Actually the article is from 2012, so I assume its because many of Federer's best years were still ahead of him.
Reading this article, I kept thinking of a song lyric: "Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb."
Well, I stopped reading when it said that Federer ”has been choking” , losing due to a ”mental frailty” . It told me everything I need to know that there is nothing serious to be read and learned in this article.
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)
But the stronger reason to stop reading is that, in the most generous interpretation, the author started to argue the benefits of “not thinking too much” by using a unfalsifiable claim about a very subjective interpretation of a fact, attributing causality to an anedocte that is far too complex to be resumed into a simplistic reason based on the author’s assumption. This seemed ridiculous to me.
It was obvious to me that the author didn’t have much of a science-informed take (my impression form the title) and was just doing unsubstantiated storytelling