It was a long day “in the office” folks!

That means a 4:15am wake-up call to do some Exuberant training, and then on to Wilderness First Responder class from 8am to 5pm!

By the time the little Wolf was off to bed, we gathered up energy to play a game! And here it is!

So forgive the poor lighting and the slight mess (we moved into our new place on Friday)…

AND GO PLAY SOME PARTNER-RESIST!

Good morning Animals!

It’s a lovely pitch-black, cold and rainy January 3rd here in Seattle!

Today’s game is a way to play with your visual awareness.

It’s good for hunters, trackers, athletes, and anyone who wants to experience a more peaceful level of awareness in their lives.

Enjoy!!

Happy New Year Exuberant Animals!

Today’s game of the day is brought to you by Josh Leeger. Rope-a-dope challenges balance and hand-eye coordination, and can be turned into a wicked strength exercise if you get burly with it.

Have fun!

Looking at health prescriptions nowadays, I constantly see lists of action items we’re supposed to follow:

- Eat more (or some specific quantity of) vegetables,
- Exercise daily (for x amount of time),
- Stop smoking and drinking alcohol,
- Reduce stress,

Some publications or pundits are more or less specific, focusing on only one of the variables.  But then there’s a list underneath that special category.

- Eat more vegetables…and…

- Especially (some quantity of) green leafy ones…
- And some quantity of red ones,
- And another quantity of orange ones,
- And avoid white ones (or some other variety).
- * And make sure they’re all organic.
- ** And make sure you cook them a particular way.
- *** And when cooking them, don’t forget to use a certain type of oil, or water, or cooker, or cooking process.
- **** And while you’re at it, go read Dr. Jabba-The-Hut’s book about stress reduction and follow his guidelines (but for god’s sake don’t follow his dietary advice!!!).

A Personal Interlude
I had a unique experience growing up.  For various reasons, from the time I was 5 until I was 12 I changed schools every year.

New school, new teacher, new environment, new friends, new teaching styles.  Everything new.

I learned to look at “things” differently from my peers.  I didn’t realize it until much much later, but having that early experience kept me from learning a lot of categorical knowledge.

Categorical knowledge is the way a culture ascribes meaning to differences between things.  How that culture creates “categories.”

The classical test in our culture of categorical knowledge is in analogical reasoning:

“A is to B as B is to __.” Or, “A is to B as C is to __ .”

I did poorly at those tests.  The possibilities seemed endless to me.  “A is to B as C is to __ ?”  Which quality of A, B, and C?

And whenever I’d see the answer, I’d think to myself – “What about everything else?!”  I still do.

Cultural Conditioning
I missed some of that cultural training – “Focus on these things, not those things.”  “This is what is important here, and this is what is not important.”  “These things “automatically” go together, and these others do not.”

I still struggle with this, obviously.  But it gets worse!

My childhood also lacked good role models for the “specialist” mindset.  I wasn’t subjected to adults who engaged in isolationist approaches to…well, anything.  Problem upon problem!

It wasn’t until very recently that I learned that what I’d missed was cultural knowledge, and not “inherent truth” (which also explains why I was so good at mathematics – numbers are straightforward in analogical regard…until you get to advanced mathematics, 1 always equals 1).

What about everything else?!
Seems like a valid question to me.  But, of course, I’m biased.  It’s one of the reasons the Exuberant Animal Mandala appeals to me so strongly.  The Mandala is inclusive.  Should we consider Mind without Body and Spirit?  We can, but should we?

And what about Land, Tribe, and Ancestor?  What is gained by considering our habitat, and our evolutionary (personal and species-wide) history when we approach problems in life?  What is lost when we do not consider those things?

Our cultural stance is toward atomism, reductionism, and specialization.  We seek “the best way” to do things, based on recompiled statistical averages and time-bound analyses of minute aspects of multi-factorial behaviors.

Since that is our cultural value of things, it is also the way we teach, the way we grade, the way we appraise one another’s “intelligence,” or the value of an argument.

So don’t get me wrong when I complain about endless lists of “qualities” that we’re “supposed to” follow (completely against the thrust of environment, culture, media, and our school-based learning experiences).

I don’t know what I’m talking about.

One of the most important things that is lost for most adults is pure imaginary play.  When you have an imaginary friend as an adult, they call it “split personality,” and put you on special medications to turn you into a vegetable, or lock you in a cage.  You are “sick” at that point.

This quote from my last post raises some interesting questions for people in our culture.  Do we think it’s appropriate for adults to have imaginary friends?!

Let’s look at this question from a different perspective.

Most children engage in “imaginary play” – play in which they’re creating their own reality.

As we get better and better at “playing adult” we also begin to accept the language associated with “playing adult.”  We talk about things like “certainty,” and “knowing,” and “best” or “worst.”  We close the door to our imagination.

Or do we.

All along that process, we create a reality for ourselves.  We decide that the world is a certain way.  How can we tell that we’ve decided the world is a certain way?  It becomes very clear when we get really upset about the way another person has decided the world is.  When we come up against someone else’s “story” about how the world “is” and recoil against it, we know that we’ve encountered a place where we’ve constructed our own idea of the world.  That is, we know where we’ve created our own reality.

Yes, Josh, that’s great, AND, adults know more about reality than children!  So what’s your point?!

Is that really true?  If so, why do books like “All I Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten” hit best-seller lists?

Adults have learned technical skills that children do not know, but often in that process adults lose knowledge about reality, knowledge that children haven’t blocked themselves from.  If I haven’t been clear enough, let me make it explicit – adult “reality” is largely an imaginary construct.

Have you ever talked to yourself in traffic?  What about after you’ve made a mistake?  To whom were you speaking?

If and when we talk to ourselves negatively, we create negative patterns of behavior, and almost always only reinforce the bad behavior we’ve experienced.  We’re the stern parent to ourselves, reprimanding our stupidity.  Have you ever decided that something you did was really stupid, and had other people genuinely compliment you on that?  The reality we create in our heads is not the reality other people see or experience.

Adults don’t engage in imaginary play, because they aren’t engaging much in play at all anymore – except in playing at being “adult.”  Adults are still engaged in imagination, but it’s become limited.  Playing with your idea of what “reality” is gives you greater perspective, greater appreciation for others’ realities, and more tools to use when you encounter problems that are a result of your “reality.”

Make sure your imaginary friends are helpful, supportive, constructive, and “play well with others.”  Start out by trying some new games.

The Importance of Play
Why play?  Ginsburg (2007) points out succinctly – “Play is so important to optimal child development that it has been recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child.” (Ginsburg, 2007, pg. 182).  In this essay I’d like to review play from a few perspectives.

Before getting deeply into the benefits play offers, it is necessary to recognize that ideas of play and playfulness are culturally-created.  In the United States, “play” is decidedly a “child-like” behavior, and from there is often categorized as “child-ish.”  Adults are not supposed to play or to behave playfully.  This outlook has been called “adultism,” and has been said to stem from a “fear of children.”  As Bernie DeKoven points out, children “play being grown up.”  They are practicing behaving in “adult” ways before they have grown up.  As time goes by, they become better and better at being “adult,” and forget that it was just a game, all along (DeKoven, 2001).  This cultural tendency also leads us to divide our activities into terms of work OR play (Baudriallard, 1970; Brown, 1995).  One of the things most adults first encounter when encouraged to play is this culturally-learned discomfort.

Human beings are neotenous by nature.  That is, they retain child-like qualities late into development.  This characteristic of the human animal is said to be one of its evolutionary strong-suits.  While it leaves us in a state of increased vulnerability – as children – longer than most other animals, that long development gives us a lot of time to develop unique abilities.

One of the most important things that is lost for most adults is pure imaginary play.  When you have an imaginary friend as an adult, they call it “split personality,” and put you on special medications to turn you into a vegetable, or lock you in a cage.  You are “sick” at that point.

Because of this much of the research on play has been based on children.  Research regarding brain and body plasticity should negate the cultural bias or prejudice in us against play for adults.  Aside from the social/cognitive developmental benefits derived from play (for instance, the self-directed creation of rule-based behavior involved in play seems to help stimulate the development of self-regulation – see Paris & Newman, 1990; Bodrova & Leong, 2008, or Spiegel, 2008) research shows that play and play-based activity stimulate cognitive learning (Sattelmair, 2009).  Berry, et al.’s, discussion of play in their research reveals more of the learning-dynamics made available through play (Berry, et al., 2008).

Definitions of Play
Many authors have defined play over the years, in many different ways.  It’s amazing how many diverse meanings one word can have or impart.

Brown defines play as “a spontaneous, nonstereotyped, intrinsically pleasurable activity, free of anxiety or other overpowering emotion, without a visible, clear-cut goal other than its own activity” (Brown, 1995, pp. 7-8).

Pearce defines play in terms of the benefits it bestows – ‘True playing is the ability to play with reality.  True play-driven imagination gives resiliency, flexibility, endurance, and the capacity to forego immediate reward on behalf of long-term strategies’ (Pearce 1993).

Brownlee (1954) proposed that children play to engage muscles, and bone/tendon, they would not otherwise use that will be necessary as adults (for instance in escape of fighting)…

“Play-like behaviour is an expression of behavioural expansion, characterized by a rich repertoire of movements (Kortmulder 1998).”

Burdette and Whitaker (2005) say that “Play is the spontaneous activity in which children engage to amuse and to occupy themselves.  It is also a way children optimize their own brain development” pg. 46.

Sattelmair and Ratey make the case for play as physical activity.  “Physical activity presents a physiological stress to the brain that, when balanced with recovery, promotes adaptation and growth, preserves brain function, and enables the brain to respond to future challenges (Mattson 2004). Physical activity has been shown to enhance learning and memory in animals (Vaynman 2004) and to delay or prevent cognitive decline in elderly humans (Kramer 2004).” pg. 366.  Further, “physically strenuous play constitutes an enriched environment, which entails physical activity, social interaction, and novel (or intellectual) stimuli” pg. 367

Earlier in his career, Richard Fagen had a more “functional” and life-history limited perspective of play and playlike behavior.  “Play behavior is vigorous, oriented, relatively variable motor activity which apparently lacks immediate functional consequences and which occurs frequently in a social context, accompanied by specific signal patterns (Fagen 1974).  Play includes motor patterns used in hunting, fighting, predator avoidance, and mating, but consequences of playful activity differ from consequences of serious performances of the same motor patterns” pg. 395.  Another quote from the same article says that “Play is primarily an activity of young animals, although free-living adults of some species (e.g., chimpanzees [van Lawick-Goodall 1968], African lions [Schaller 1972], timber wolves [Mech 1966]), as well as adult animals in zoos and adults of domesticated species have been observed to play” pg. 395.  Fagen hypothesized that play only occurs when other needs had been accounted for, and that fitness affects of play were limited if existent at all.

Such a view was countered by Byers & Walker (1995) who said that “all endurance and strength effects are transitory and are available to individuals at any age…it is unlikely that play is a form of endurance or strength training because play bouts are too brief to prompt such benefits of exercise…Norway rat play bouts typically last 5-8 s…training regimes that were used to obtain an 8%-10% increases in VO2max typically required children to exercise four to five times per week, for 12-24 weeks, running or swimming for 1 h in each exercise session.  By definition in these studies, these levels of activity exceeded those that the children naturally performed in play” pg. 29

Fagen and Fagen (Robert and Johanna) “speculate that play experience relieves past stress and builds resistance to future stress.”  (Fagen & Fagen, 2004, pg. 89).  This particular element of play or playful behavior has been used by Levine in his book Waking the Tiger, and in his method for healing trauma, called “Somatic Experiencing.”

Ginsburg (2007) discusses the benefits of play extensively, as well as the results of play-deprivation, which are dire.

Play develops self-regulation.  Children (or adults) who play with others need to negotiation complex social situations in order to continue to play.  (Bodrova et al., 2008).

Play must be signaled (Brown, 1995).  It is not “reality.”  Rather, a “play contract” (Forencich, 2007) is made between two or more animals (also see Huizinga, 1955) regarding all of these.

Tomayto, Tomahto
Let’s say we agree on a definition of play from any of those above.  Researchers have been equally prolific in defining “types” of play.  Some are outlined on the Child Development Institute’s website:
Motor/Physical Play
Social Play
Constructive Play
Fantasy Play
Games With Rules

Mildred Parten categorized 6 types of play back (Parten, 1933):
Unoccupied play
Solitary play
Onlooker play
Parallel play
Associative play
Cooperative play

What are the “best” ones?  There is no such thing.  What these “types” exhibit to me more than anything else is that play extends into any situation!

Play and Communication
Communication is essential for play.  One of the things I find when I first begin play-groups with adults is that they want to know all of the rules.  Part of the problem was my lack of specific instruction of “the rules.”

So I had to point out, in very specific terms, “rules of play.”  The types of rules we use in Exuberant Animal.  Spot each other – we’re not seeking harm in any way – to person or pride…there is no true “winner” for this game…that is, no one should walk away with hurt feelings.  The goal is to explore the game as much as possible – vary speed/direction/movement, vary amount of communication (verbal or bodily – i.e., pressure).  Which also means that you should be exerting yourself (mentally or physically)!

But I ran into a trap.  As Spiegel points out – The more structured the play, the more self-talk declines.  The less self-talk, or self-directed activity, the less development of executive function, and self-regulation (Spiegel, 2008).  My adult players (and children do this as well) became consumed with trying to follow the rules, rather than experiencing the play.  I had to revise my rule-making.  It eventually became two rules in one sentence – Have fun and be safe.

Competition and Cooperation
In his book “Finite and Infinite Games” James Carse defined (you could probably guess) two types of game – finite and infinite.  Finite games are those that are played to be won.  Finite games have a definite end-point.  There is a winner and a loser.  Infinite games are those that are played in order to keep playing.

Competition and cooperation are elements of human interaction.  A person can “compete against themselves” or “compete against the clock” but those types of competition are motivational, rather than outcome oriented.

Either type of play – finite or infinite – can be cooperative or competitive.  The orientation is more about the outlook of the players.  For example, in a game of 1-on-1 basketball, do we play to 10, or do we play to 10 million?  Or, knowing that I beat you that day (or you beat me), do we go home and gloat/mope, or do we recognize that that game was a continuation of the games we’d been playing?  Or do we combine those, and admit that we lost that day, but will return again to compete the next day – and every one after that.

We are adopting a particular perspective when we play (or do anything).  This realization underlies the importance of rules in our play, even if the rule is “there are no rules.”  Deciding the structure of the play allows for full potential to be exhibited.  Games can be structured however we want.  We can play for points (or a single point), we can play for the sake of playing, or we can play to achieve some group-outcome.

Final Thoughts
The optimal environment for skill development is a playful one.  Play/play-like behavior has been linked to the evolution of new movement patterns, based on the uncoupling (through play-based activity) of the pattern generators that usually guide such patterns (Dubbeldam, 2001).  Play, contrary to opinion at times, is not a strictly human quality, but extends throughout the animal kingdom and across age groups.  I would go so far as to say that every quality of skill-development is a descriptor of play, or play-like states.  For instance, consider the qualities of self-directed activity, variability of stimulus, use of one’s own tools, task-orientation (versus mastery-orientation), a balance between structure and chaos, and the use of imagination and creativity necessary for skill development.  These are all things that occur during play states.

Expression and exploration of one’s organism in relation to a challenging (yet, playfully challenging, non-threatening) environment, is play.  It seems to have no aim, but the aim is in the activity itself.  It is self-revealing.  One learns one’s own abilities, limitations, and dispositions through self-directed interaction with the environment.  The activity is necessarily varied, and highly random.  It may not repeat itself again for several days, or at all, yet it provides consistent input regarding the unattached solution of the problem at hand.

Skill-development is optimal when the learner is hovering on the edge of chaos.  The nature of play as constantly vacillating between chaos and order, and the stabilizing aspects of chaos themselves, are explained by Stuart Brown, M.D., of the National Institute for Play:

“Certain classes or categories within evolutionary biology take on emergent identities.  Creativity emerges in the dynamics of complex systems, and yet, these emergent forms, despite existing on the edge of chaos, are fundamentally stabilizing from the lowest to the highest level in the ecological hierarchy (Waldrop 1992; Lewin 1992).  As I have since reflected on the biological implications of current cosmological theory, I see the evolutionary emergence of major new forms of behavior such as sleep and play, as fundamentally stabilizing complex systems” (Brown, 1995, pg. 251).

Dr. Brown noted the appearance of this phenomenon in another setting, observing that “Play behavior seemed to precede the clear EEG establishment of perceptual awareness” [author’s emphasis] in children recovering from Rubella (ibid., pp. 245-246).  Play was skill-development, or perhaps, preceded skill-development.

While play technically speaking has no specific outcome, it seems that the qualities of play are those that we would want to foster in order to support optimal skill-development.  As Robert Fagen remarks, “In a world continuously presenting unique challenges and ambiguity, play prepares [animals] for an evolving planet” (Brown, 1995, pg. 5).

But even beyond that, or maybe, before that, play offers us a chance to participate in life more fully.  In his book “Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring to Shower You with Blessings,” Rob Breszny quotes programmer Gary Hamilton’s rules for game-playing.  Here they are:

1. If the game is rigged so you can’t win, find another game or invent your own.
2. If you’re not winning because you don’t know the rules, learn the rules.
3. If you know the rules but aren’t willing to follow them, there’s either something wrong with the game or you need to change something in yourself.
4. Don’t play the game in a half-baked way. Either get all the way in or all the way out.
5. It shouldn’t be necessary for others to lose in order for you to win. If others have to lose, re-evaluate the game’s goals.

(Breszny, 2005,  pg. 84)

Science is about perceiving the world, and then creating models to help to understand that perception and to guide action.  Much of the scientific enterprise in our culture seems to me actually to be about control, or the ability to control.  With massive-scale phenomena (e.g., the weather) that cannot be controlled, the value of inquiry is restricted to understanding and prediction.  However, with smaller-scale phenomena (those having to do with human physiology or behavior, for instance), the aims of understanding and prediction always seem to be colored by an underlying desire to control.  Fields of inquiry like motor learning, that first sought to understand, very quickly became studies of how to effect change in (or control) the subject being studied.  The only reason I say this is that control, and the element of overt-control, or power-over, is in direct conflict with the principles of play, that seem to be critical principles for the development of skill.

Is it any wonder, then, that our culture scores lower than others on scores of scientific literacy?

Play, similarly, is not necessarily time-bound.  While a particular game may be bounded by time-guidelines or regulations, or the amount of time the participant can continue to perform physically, the play-mentality can be extended throughout life.  Practice makes perfect, and the physical practice supports and augments the mental.

Cultural restrictions must be considered in terms of what they mean for the members of that culture.  Within our own, as discussed, play and playful behavior is thought of as being childish – in a derogatory sense.  This effectively cuts adults off from social play (since we know that most of the X-generation engages in various types of play (including video games)).  Acknowledging the benefits of play and playful behavior across the lifespan can help to change cultural values and increase the productivity and enjoyment of the entire species throughout life.

-Josh Leeger

References
Acocella, J.  (2008).  The Child Trap.  The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/11/17/081117crbo_books_acocella.

Ackerman, D. (1999). Deep Play.  Random House.

Bekoff, M.  (1975).  Animal Play and Behavioral Diversity.  The American Naturalist, Vol. 109(969), pp. 601-603 .

Berry, J., Abernethy, B., Cote, J. (2008).  The Contribution of Structured Activity and Deliberate Play to the Development of Expert perceptual and Decision-making Skill.  Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 30, pp. 685-708.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J.  (2008).  Developing Self-Regulation in Kindergarten, Can We Keep All the Crickets in the Basket?  Young Children, March, pp. 56-68.
Brezsny, R.  (2005).  Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring to Shower You with Blessings.  Berkeley: Frog, Ltd.

Brody, J.E.  (2007).  A classroom of Monkey Bars and Slides.  The New York Times, online, April 3, 2007.

Brown, S.L.  (1995).  Through the Lens of Play.  Revision, 17(4), pp. 4-14.

Brown, S.L.  (1998).  Play as an organizing principle: clinical evidence and personal observations.  IN: Bekoff, M., & Byers, J.A., Animal Play.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243-

Burdette, H.L., & Whitaker, R.C.  (2005).  Resurrecting free play in young children.  Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect.  Archives of pediactrics and adolescent medicine, 159, pp. 46-50.

Byers, J.A., Walker, C.  (1995).  Refining the motor training hypothesis for the evolution of play.  The American Naturalist, 146(1), pp. 25-40.

Child Developent Institute.  Types of Play.  http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/pl1.shtml

Clements, R.L.  (2000).  Playworkers: Creating Opportunties for Children’s Play.  Dimensions of Early Childhood, 28(4), 9-13.

Clements, R.  (2004).  An Investigation of the Status of Outdoor Play.    Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 5(1), pp.

Clements, R.L., & Fiorentino, L.  (2004).  The Child’s Right to Play.  Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Clements, R.L., & Kinzler, S.K.  (2002).  A multicultural approach to physical education.  Human Kinetics.

Clements, R.L., & Oosten, M.  (1995).  Creating and implementing preschool movement narratives.  Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 66(3),

DeKoven, B. (2001).  A Conversation with Kristi MacFarland. http://www.deepfun.com/interview1.htm

Dubbeldam, J.L.  (2001).  Evolution of Playlike Behavior and the Uncoupling of Neural Locomotor Mechanisms.  Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 51(3), pp. 335-345.

Fagen, R.  (1974).  Selective and evolutionary aspects of animal play.  American Naturalist, 108(964), pp. 850-858.

Fagen, R.  (1977).  Selection for optimal age-dependent schedules of play behavior.  American Naturalist, 111(979), pp. 395-414.

Fagen, R., & Fagen, J.  (2004).  Juvenile survival and benefits of play behavior in brown bears, Ursus arctos.  Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6, pp. 89-102.

Frost, J. L., Brown, P. S., Sutterby, J. A. and Thornton, C. D. (2004). The Developmental Benefits of Playgrounds. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Frost, J.L., Brown, P-S, Sutterby, J.A., Therrell, J.A., Thornton, C.D.  (2007).  Overhead Equipment Use: The Developmental Benefits and Use Patterns of Overhead Equipment on Playgrounds.  Playcore.

Geertz, C.  (1972).  Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.  Deadalus, 101(1), pp. 1-37.

Gilbert, M.C.  (2001).  On Having Fun: Interviewing Bernie De Koven.  Nonprofit Online News.  http://news.gilbert.org/Bernie

Huizinga, J.  (1955).  Homo Ludens, Beacon Press: Boston.

Levine, P.  (1997).  Waking the tiger: healing trauma : the innate capacity to transform overwhelming experiences.  Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.

McGuire, L.  Natural Play Environments: Prescription for the Future.  http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/9556

Parten, M. (1933). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 136–147.

Parker-Pope, T.  (2008).  A ‘Dose of Nature’ for Attention Problems.  NY Times, October 17 2008 – http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/a-dose-of-nature-for-attention-problems/

Sachs, A.  (2008).  Are you turning your child into a wimp?  Time Magazine.  http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1817260,00.html

Sattelmair, J., & Ratey, J.J.  (2009).  Physically Active Play and Cognition, An Academic Matter?  American Journal of Play, pp. 365-374.

Spiegel, A.  (2008).  Creative Play Makes for Kids in Control.  NPR online: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=76838288

Spiegel, A.  (2008).  Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills.  NPR online: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19212514#email

Sutton-Smith, B., & Roberts, J.M.  (1962).  Child Training and Game Involvement.  Ethnology, 1(2), 166-185.

Sutton-Smith, B.  (1980).  Children’s Play: Some Sources of Play Theorizing.  New Directions for Child Development, 9, 1-.

Virgilio, S.J.  (2005).  Active Start for Healthy Kids.  Human Kinetics: Champlaign.

In today’s workaholic world, things are getting pretty uptight. In disciplines ranging from athletic training to classroom education, there’s scarcely any room to move. Every detail of our curriculum is now pre-meditated, measured and monitored. We have become hypnotized by the illusion of our expertise and we have excessive confidence in our knowledge. In our quest for professionalism and results, we tighten up our acts to the point that people can hardly breathe.

If all this screw-tightening actually worked, that would be one thing. But it doesn’t. Our top-down delivery of expert knowledge actually deadens the learning process and inhibits personal ownership of education and health. And, from a neurological point of view, rigid programs may actually be inferior to messy, random and diverse practices.

Consider this masterful presentation by Gary Avischious, head coach at CoachingSchool.org. As Gary demonstrates, motor learning works best when it includes variation. And, not only does this principle apply to motor learning, it also becomes a metaphor for learning on any scale.

Coach Gary’s perspective is reinforced by a recent New York Times piece How Nonsense Sharpens the Intellect. The short story is that violations of patterns and expectation actually stimulate the brain to seek out meaning. In this respect, play and modern art both activate the brain in new ways and keep our minds active.

Now obviously, we can go overboard with play, diversity and randomness. An over-randomized program doesn’t stimulate any training effect and simply wastes time. Nevertheless, it’s time to loosen up our training and embrace some variation. Not only does it work better; it’s also a lot more fun.

“The Paleolithic hunters who painted the unsurpassed animal murals on the ceiling of the cave at Altamira had only rudimentary tools. Art is older than production for use, and play older than work. Man was shaped less by what he had to do than by what he did in playful moments. It is the child in man that is the source of his uniqueness and creativeness, and the playground is the optimal milieu for the unfolding of his capacities.”

Eric Hoffer
(1902 – 1983)

In conventional fitness circles, we’re encouraged to do work-outs with lots of physical labor. We sweat and grind out the reps, trying to overload our bodies, build muscle and burn fat. We’re serious, disciplined and determined to transform our tissue and our lives.

In this equation, play is considered a frivolous waste of time, an irrelevant sideshow for kids and puppies. But this formula misses an enormous vista of potential and possibility. Play, as it turns out, can take us to a higher level of physical health, vitality and social functioning.

This potential becomes obvious in a excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveal how play develops a sense of fairness and social cohesion in non-human animals. Finely detailed studies of animal play, especially in dogs, coyotes and wolves, demonstrate that these animals actively negotiate roles and behaviors during play bouts.

So, far from being frivolous, play is beginning to look like an essential activity for social functioning. And conversely, play-deprivation is beginning to look like a serious threat to health at all levels.

As fitness enthusiasts, we could build upon this knowledge by bringing more intentional play into our movement education programs. Yes, sweat and effort are still essential, but these elements are far from sufficient. If we bring more play into fitness, we expand the potential enormously. We go beyond the body and make our practice more holistic. This builds a virtuous circle: by using play to develop social cohesion, we also promote individual health which feeds back into healthier tribes and communities.

“…I see that everything in nature arises from the power of free play sloshing against the power of limits.”

Stephen Nachmanovitch
Free Play
Improvisation in Life and Art

“The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play.”

Arnold Toynbee

Physical enthusiasts continue to grapple with the role of freedom and discipline in fitness and health. Some lean towards highly disciplined “work outs” while others prefer more intuitive “play sessions.” As always, advocates for work and play will continue to call each other out, but the conversation may actually be moving to a higher level in pre-school classrooms.

It may seem strange to draw comparisons between physical training and early childhood education, but that is precisely where the future lies. We get a glimpse of this trajectory in Paul Tough’s recent New York Times article: Can the Right Kinds of Play Teach Self-Control?

The central issue of the story is “executive function” in young children. This phrase refers to the general ability to control one’s thoughts and behaviors. Specifically, it means the ability to dampen or inhibit impulses coming from the emotional or limbic centers of the brain. Obviously, this is a fundamental skill when attempting to master literacy and scholarship, but it’s also essential to skill development at any age and in any discipline, from chess to sports to business. (See also Daniel Goleman’s work on “emotional intelligence.”)

The finding reported in this story suggests that fantasy or pretend play, when conducted within limits, leads to the development of self-control. Students who play out fantasy stories and situations learn to master their own brains and channel their copious energies. This practice is described as a blending of play and work.

Successful students in almost any discipline know the paradoxical truth: progress requires a blend of both freedom and discipline. Improvisation is essential; so are limits. Copious research into the nature of talent and skill has proven that immersion, engagement and deliberate, intentional action are essential to moving brains and bodies to higher levels. Recent books such as The Talent Code and Talent is Over-rated make a compelling case for deep and deliberate practice. It’s not grinding labor, nor is it frivolous dabbling: it’s improv within limits.

This is why the martial art model is so famously effective in promoting self-control and regulation, in both children and adults. Martial art is all about participation and engagement. The sensei lays down the limits and enforces them consistently. Practice sessions are full-immersion experiences and are highly physical. Within those limits, play is encouraged. Students learn to control their bodies, their behavior and their own cognition.

Our schools and our gyms could learn a great deal from this kind of practice.