Beth Benoit wrote: > The section I'm considering using is the claim that Canadian > ice hockey players are more likely to be born in the first few > months of the calendar year. I'll probably follow the same > method as above, breaking students into groups to examine > the roster I'll hand out, then giving them Gladwell's explanation. > [...]
I haven't followed this closely, so this may have been dealt with: I presume it has been ascertained that births are evenly distributed throughout the year. Or, if not, that this has been factored in in Gladwell's argument. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ********************************************** "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> 05-Jan-09 6:30 PM > Beth Benoit wrote: > > > > The section I'm considering using is the claim that Canadian ice > > hockey players are more likely to be born in the first few months of > > the calendar year. I'll probably follow the same method as > > above, breaking students into groups to examine the roster I'll hand > > out, then giving them Gladwell's explanation. > > .... > > I'd also be interested in thoughts from our Canadian brethren about > > the concept of early birthdates being helpful to hockey success. > > Stephen, Chris? > > Funny, I had just heard this claim over Christmas from a relative of > mine. She said that something like half of NHLers are born in the first > three or four months of the year. But for all I know, she got this from > the Gladwell book (which I haven't read). > > The general claim makes some sense to me. When kids are young, the size > and coordination differences between those born in January and those > born in December can be quite noticeable. I'd be a little surprised, > however, if this continued on into the elite levels as strongly as is > claimed for three reasons: (1) Many professional hockey players are > mostly huge compared to the rest of us, and so they were probably never > small compared to their classes, even if they were a few months younger > then average. (2) It is not the case that once you're the best in your > class you always remain that way. For instance, I was just talking to > friends whose 14-yr-old daughter has been very good a volleyball until > now. She was also taller than most of her classmates, but this year she > her growth has slowed while many of her classmates have caught up or > passed her, so she is quite suddenly not as dominant as she has been up > to now. By the time one reaches elite levels of sport, I would expect > that much of the early advantage would be neutralized. (3) At elite > levels of a sport, sheer physical talent is an important factor. Most of > we ordinary mortals could not compete with them even if we practiced as > many hours a day as they do. > > Canada goes against Sweden for the world junior championship tonight! Go > Canucks! > > Chris --------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: using "Outliers" in the classroom From: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:39:52 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I must have nothing else to do today because I decided to print out all the NHL rosters. Here is what I found: 205/682 players are listed with birth dates in JanFebMar. A chi-square analysis suggests this is significant at less than .01 and hence could not have occurred by chance. Of course, the same holds true for a comparison of players who list their home towns in North America (where presumably the elite teams are decided by birth dates, versus those whose home towns are outside North America (the VAST majority from former Soviet Union or Scandinavian countries--don't know what to think about Korea or Brazil, except these kids must have lived elsewhere) and for whom I don't know if the birthdate thing holds true where the figures are: North American born JanFebMar=142 North American born AMJJASOND = 339 outside NA born JanFebMar = 63 outside NA born AMJJASOND = 138 Now this all gets more dramatic if you look at top and bottom 4 teams in the current (midseason just about) standing: Top 4 teams: San Jose, Boston, Detroit, Washington: JFM = 39 players rest = 63 players So 38%, or more than the expected 33.3% Bottom 4 teams: Islanders, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Ottawa JFM = 29 players rest = 72 players So 32%, or slightly less than the expected 33.3% So, Beth, maybe overall there is something to Gladwell's hypothese--although I do like your caveat to check things out :) Annette -------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: using "Outliers" in the classroom From: "Gerald Peterson" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:25:44 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is this an "effect"--or rather an association? Also, stat. significance = simply means that it is not likely chance, not that it absolutely could = not be due to chance. Gary Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
