I think much of the confusion around ecological psychology and ecological dynamics in the sport/coaching world is due to the fact that people forget this is FIRST a general theory of perception (and action, of course) that people have later applied to sport. The problem with 1/n

skipping straight to application for sport without understanding the diff ontology, placement within history of psych, is that people don't understand rationale for certain practices/preferences themselves. Unfortunately, many using nonlinear pedagogies have been too quick 2/n

to give simple, preachy answers "ladders and cones are bad" rather than saying "why don't you develop your understanding of learning and perception for yourself and see how that informs your practice", and we're paying the price for this "shortcut" now. 3/n

A lot of the questions/comments I hear about self- organisation and constraints roughly equate to asking someone who subscribes to a computational theory of mind if training should consist of actually plugging our brains into a computer and downloading programs. 4/n

"well you said it had to do with computing so I brought my calculator to practice" sounds silly but we are getting the equivalent level of understanding in conversations around coaching practice. @ShakeyWaits has done a great job working on this lately 5/n

but having been reading gibson, turvey, shaw, bickhard, michaels, carello, warren, lee, and so on for a few years now and still feeling like a relative beginner in my understanding, I sometimes wonder how realistic it is for majority of people.

(to invest this much time)