Jump to content

Streaks and the "flow" state


Recommended Posts

This is a somewhat long “think-piece”, so it might not be to the taste of those who like to limit ideas to 140 characters.

Basketball, especially NCAA Div 1 Basketball, is frequently a game of streaks. We see it all the time: the Bills go on a streak, and suddenly they’re up 10 or 12 or more; then, after cruising for a bit, they lose focus. Nothing goes in. The defense breaks down. A bad pass, then a bad foul, and all of a sudden a big lead is squandered.

We’ve seen this pattern of “streaks” in each of the three games this year. We also saw it last year, and just about every year. Of course, last year, there were a number of big games in which a bad streak in the final minutes of the game had the Bills lose a game they probably should have won.

Part of what was positive about the Memphis game (Tue Nov 15) was that, although Memphis went on a streak with 4 minutes left in the game, the Bills were able to stem the tide.

Streaks are not unique to basketball. Anyone who has played horseshoes or golf or cornhole/bags or darts or any of a number of such games knows the experience when one is on a streak: an individual player or an entire team somehow enters the “flow” state, and everything seems to work.

In basketball games, the crowd notices when a team has entered the “flow” state, and a buzz of excitement fills the air. Those are special moments.

The leading expert on the “flow” state is a Hungarian psychologist with a strange name: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. His classic study is titled Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. He presents his central ideas about “flow” in this 18-minute TED talk.

Part of what has me thinking about “flow” – in addition to the streakiness of the Bills in the last couple games – is several comments made by the Wiz.

Caveat: I’ve benefited from reading the Wiz for many years. I'm grateful for his perspective, and I consider his pre-game reports "must reads" that allow me to enjoy each game in a more detailed, focused manner.

With that said, I want to take issue with, or at least qualify, something the Wiz wrote recently.

In the string titled, “Ratings and Rankings and Polls … Oh My”, the Wiz wrote that “most computer based rankings are living, breathing entities”. There’s an innocent sense in which the Wiz is using a metaphor: he’s responding to questions that people ask him about rankings, especially the puzzle that sometimes SLU wins a game against a higher ranked team, but the subsequent movement in the poll is not quite what’s expected. The comment by the Wiz makes it clear that he is using a sort of metaphor: rankings “change by the hour as games are being played”. In other words, he is not literally saying that the computer is alive, or that computers breath.

Computer programs, no matter how sophisticated, given the current state of technology, are definitely NOT “living, breathing entities”.

 

If we pursue this line of thought very far, we enter into pretty deep philosophical waters: What is it to be a living, breathing entity? What is life? To what extent can computers model life? To what extent can a quality (such as the “flow” state) be captured in a quantitative formula?

Without facing these questions head on, I think it’s worth noticing that some of what Csikszentmihalyi has to say on these matters is insightful. For example, Csikszentmihalyi identifies the following features of the “flow” state:

  1. Complete concentration on the task;
  2. Clarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback;
  3. Transformation of time;
  4. The experience is intrinsically rewarding;
  5. Effortlessness and ease;
  6. There is a balance between challenge and skills;
  7. Actions and awareness are merged, losing self-conscious rumination;
  8. There is a feeling of control over the task.

Csikszentmihalyi points to two ways in which one can enter or exit the flow state.  From one side, there is a movement through worry, anxiety, and arousal. On the other side, there is a movement from boredom, relaxation, and control.

It’s my impression that in almost every instance in which the Bills exit the flow state, they do so by becoming too relaxed, and they move toward sloppiness and perhaps boredom. Then, when they try to re-enter the flow state, they get stuck in anxiety and worry.

My hunch is that this lines up with what the Wiz means regarding his summary of the season so far: “inconsistently consistent” … “up and down” … “hot and cold”. I’m not sure whether the Wiz’s computer has a formula for those phrases. My hunch is that these are qualities, not quantifiables that are measurable with a computer metric. With that said, I don’t think descriptions of the "flow state" -- and the other states that surround flow -- are simply pure emotional mush. Rather, part of what’s involved in being a “living, breathing entity” of the human sort is that, while we can’t quite snap our fingers and move into the flow state, athletes and coaches can have some self-awareness of the team’s current state. When things become too relaxed, one can recognize the need to improve self-control; when one slips into anxiety and worry, one can re-gain a sense of self-mastery and confidence.

In my judgment, the formulas and analysis that the Wiz provides are very helpful for providing one perspective; at the same time, I find myself wondering whether this level of analysis can and should be complemented by attending to individual and team performance in terms of the flow-state as described by Csikszentmihalyi. If the Bills are going to learn how to navigate the “peaks and valleys” mentioned by the Wiz, my hunch is that they’ll need both approaches: analysis in terms of quantitative metrics and awareness of qualitative states of presence and engagement.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I learned about “flow” in a grad school class in ‘82. The instructor had met Mike C., as he called him, and was especially fired up about teaching it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Minerva N. Owl said:

This is a somewhat long “think-piece”, so it might not be to the taste of those who like to limit ideas to 140 characters.

Basketball, especially NCAA Div 1 Basketball, is frequently a game of streaks. We see it all the time: the Bills go on a streak, and suddenly they’re up 10 or 12 or more; then, after cruising for a bit, they lose focus. Nothing goes in. The defense breaks down. A bad pass, then a bad foul, and all of a sudden a big lead is squandered.

We’ve seen this pattern of “streaks” in each of the three games this year. We also saw it last year, and just about every year. Of course, last year, there were a number of big games in which a bad streak in the final minutes of the game had the Bills lose a game they probably should have won.

Part of what was positive about the Memphis game (Tue Nov 15) was that, although Memphis went on a streak with 4 minutes left in the game, the Bills were able to stem the tide.

Streaks are not unique to basketball. Anyone who has played horseshoes or golf or cornhole/bags or darts or any of a number of such games knows the experience when one is on a streak: an individual player or an entire team somehow enters the “flow” state, and everything seems to work.

In basketball games, the crowd notices when a team has entered the “flow” state, and a buzz of excitement fills the air. Those are special moments.

The leading expert on the “flow” state is a Hungarian psychologist with a strange name: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. His classic study is titled Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. He presents his central ideas about “flow” in this 18-minute TED talk.

Part of what has me thinking about “flow” – in addition to the streakiness of the Bills in the last couple games – is several comments made by the Wiz.

Caveat: I’ve benefited from reading the Wiz for many years. I'm grateful for his perspective, and I consider his pre-game reports "must reads" that allow me to enjoy each game in a more detailed, focused manner.

With that said, I want to take issue with, or at least qualify, something the Wiz wrote recently.

In the string titled, “Ratings and Rankings and Polls … Oh My”, the Wiz wrote that “most computer based rankings are living, breathing entities”. There’s an innocent sense in which the Wiz is using a metaphor: he’s responding to questions that people ask him about rankings, especially the puzzle that sometimes SLU wins a game against a higher ranked team, but the subsequent movement in the poll is not quite what’s expected. The comment by the Wiz makes it clear that he is using a sort of metaphor: rankings “change by the hour as games are being played”. In other words, he is not literally saying that the computer is alive, or that computers breath.

Computer programs, no matter how sophisticated, given the current state of technology, are definitely NOT “living, breathing entities”.

 

 

If we pursue this line of thought very far, we enter into pretty deep philosophical waters: What is it to be a living, breathing entity? What is life? To what extent can computers model life? To what extent can a quality (such as the “flow” state) be captured in a quantitative formula?

Without facing these questions head on, I think it’s worth noticing that some of what Csikszentmihalyi has to say on these matters is insightful. For example, Csikszentmihalyi identifies the following features of the “flow” state:

  1. Complete concentration on the task;
  2. Clarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback;
  3. Transformation of time;
  4. The experience is intrinsically rewarding;
  5. Effortlessness and ease;
  6. There is a balance between challenge and skills;
  7. Actions and awareness are merged, losing self-conscious rumination;
  8. There is a feeling of control over the task.

Csikszentmihalyi points to two ways in which one can enter or exit the flow state.  From one side, there is a movement through worry, anxiety, and arousal. On the other side, there is a movement from boredom, relaxation, and control.

It’s my impression that in almost every instance in which the Bills exit the flow state, they do so by becoming too relaxed, and they move toward sloppiness and perhaps boredom. Then, when they try to re-enter the flow state, they get stuck in anxiety and worry.

My hunch is that this lines up with what the Wiz means regarding his summary of the season so far: “inconsistently consistent” … “up and down” … “hot and cold”. I’m not sure whether the Wiz’s computer has a formula for those phrases. My hunch is that these are qualities, not quantifiables that are measurable with a computer metric. With that said, I don’t think descriptions of the "flow state" -- and the other states that surround flow -- are simply pure emotional mush. Rather, part of what’s involved in being a “living, breathing entity” of the human sort is that, while we can’t quite snap our fingers and move into the flow state, athletes and coaches can have some self-awareness of the team’s current state. When things become too relaxed, one can recognize the need to improve self-control; when one slips into anxiety and worry, one can re-gain a sense of self-mastery and confidence.

In my judgment, the formulas and analysis that the Wiz provides are very helpful for providing one perspective; at the same time, I find myself wondering whether this level of analysis can and should be complemented by attending to individual and team performance in terms of the flow-state as described by Csikszentmihalyi. If the Bills are going to learn how to navigate the “peaks and valleys” mentioned by the Wiz, my hunch is that they’ll need both approaches: analysis in terms of quantitative metrics and awareness of qualitative states of presence and engagement.

Thoughts?

The Bills exit from the flow state coincides with the intense pressure good teams apply at the end of game.  The solution to this intense pressure won't be near his physical peak for another month.  So one of the stop-gaps is to get the vets we have to become more comfortable handling the ball.  I'm sure Pickett is doing a good job of being the pressure valve in practice.  However, it's hard to replicate the kind of pressure that Memphis or Auburn can apply in practice. 

The other stop-gap is for Parker to create his own offense late in the game.  Memphis was a heckuva trial by fire but what he showed was promising.

 

Billiken Rich likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Minerva N. Owl said:

This is a somewhat long “think-piece”, so it might not be to the taste of those who like to limit ideas to 140 characters.

Basketball, especially NCAA Div 1 Basketball, is frequently a game of streaks. We see it all the time: the Bills go on a streak, and suddenly they’re up 10 or 12 or more; then, after cruising for a bit, they lose focus. Nothing goes in. The defense breaks down. A bad pass, then a bad foul, and all of a sudden a big lead is squandered.

We’ve seen this pattern of “streaks” in each of the three games this year. We also saw it last year, and just about every year. Of course, last year, there were a number of big games in which a bad streak in the final minutes of the game had the Bills lose a game they probably should have won.

Part of what was positive about the Memphis game (Tue Nov 15) was that, although Memphis went on a streak with 4 minutes left in the game, the Bills were able to stem the tide.

Streaks are not unique to basketball. Anyone who has played horseshoes or golf or cornhole/bags or darts or any of a number of such games knows the experience when one is on a streak: an individual player or an entire team somehow enters the “flow” state, and everything seems to work.

In basketball games, the crowd notices when a team has entered the “flow” state, and a buzz of excitement fills the air. Those are special moments.

The leading expert on the “flow” state is a Hungarian psychologist with a strange name: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. His classic study is titled Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. He presents his central ideas about “flow” in this 18-minute TED talk.

Part of what has me thinking about “flow” – in addition to the streakiness of the Bills in the last couple games – is several comments made by the Wiz.

Caveat: I’ve benefited from reading the Wiz for many years. I'm grateful for his perspective, and I consider his pre-game reports "must reads" that allow me to enjoy each game in a more detailed, focused manner.

With that said, I want to take issue with, or at least qualify, something the Wiz wrote recently.

In the string titled, “Ratings and Rankings and Polls … Oh My”, the Wiz wrote that “most computer based rankings are living, breathing entities”. There’s an innocent sense in which the Wiz is using a metaphor: he’s responding to questions that people ask him about rankings, especially the puzzle that sometimes SLU wins a game against a higher ranked team, but the subsequent movement in the poll is not quite what’s expected. The comment by the Wiz makes it clear that he is using a sort of metaphor: rankings “change by the hour as games are being played”. In other words, he is not literally saying that the computer is alive, or that computers breath.

Computer programs, no matter how sophisticated, given the current state of technology, are definitely NOT “living, breathing entities”.

 

 

If we pursue this line of thought very far, we enter into pretty deep philosophical waters: What is it to be a living, breathing entity? What is life? To what extent can computers model life? To what extent can a quality (such as the “flow” state) be captured in a quantitative formula?

Without facing these questions head on, I think it’s worth noticing that some of what Csikszentmihalyi has to say on these matters is insightful. For example, Csikszentmihalyi identifies the following features of the “flow” state:

  1. Complete concentration on the task;
  2. Clarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback;
  3. Transformation of time;
  4. The experience is intrinsically rewarding;
  5. Effortlessness and ease;
  6. There is a balance between challenge and skills;
  7. Actions and awareness are merged, losing self-conscious rumination;
  8. There is a feeling of control over the task.

Csikszentmihalyi points to two ways in which one can enter or exit the flow state.  From one side, there is a movement through worry, anxiety, and arousal. On the other side, there is a movement from boredom, relaxation, and control.

It’s my impression that in almost every instance in which the Bills exit the flow state, they do so by becoming too relaxed, and they move toward sloppiness and perhaps boredom. Then, when they try to re-enter the flow state, they get stuck in anxiety and worry.

My hunch is that this lines up with what the Wiz means regarding his summary of the season so far: “inconsistently consistent” … “up and down” … “hot and cold”. I’m not sure whether the Wiz’s computer has a formula for those phrases. My hunch is that these are qualities, not quantifiables that are measurable with a computer metric. With that said, I don’t think descriptions of the "flow state" -- and the other states that surround flow -- are simply pure emotional mush. Rather, part of what’s involved in being a “living, breathing entity” of the human sort is that, while we can’t quite snap our fingers and move into the flow state, athletes and coaches can have some self-awareness of the team’s current state. When things become too relaxed, one can recognize the need to improve self-control; when one slips into anxiety and worry, one can re-gain a sense of self-mastery and confidence.

In my judgment, the formulas and analysis that the Wiz provides are very helpful for providing one perspective; at the same time, I find myself wondering whether this level of analysis can and should be complemented by attending to individual and team performance in terms of the flow-state as described by Csikszentmihalyi. If the Bills are going to learn how to navigate the “peaks and valleys” mentioned by the Wiz, my hunch is that they’ll need both approaches: analysis in terms of quantitative metrics and awareness of qualitative states of presence and engagement.

Thoughts?

Nice post ...I think you capture the essence of what I do.  And while I try to stay in the quantifiables  (because it is easy to measure and grade and explain to others) that doesn't mean flow is less important.  As a clarifying point , most on this board know flow as "being in the zone".  When I write , I try to stick to the numbers but every once in awhile flow creeps in.  When I mention focus...or "the team that wants it the most" these are not analytical terms.  But when games  equalize then the flow starts to creep in.  When you are playing a team like UMSL , you drag out the analyticals.  If you slash 50 / 40 /75  you beat them...nothing fancy.  But if you play a Maryland whose overall numbers are very similar to your own then you have flow creep in..."we need to reach  back for something extra." 

The mixing of technology/analytics, and the flow was captured by George Lucas in Star Wars. (if you can stand another metaphor). In the final battle scene, Luke is outnumbered by overwhelming forces and even though he has the latest technology needs something else. ..when Obi Wan's voice comes to him and tells him to trust  the flow...I mean the  Force.  The point is that flow is something that can be used with analytics or tech.  It is not either /or.  Use them together.

Which brings us back to basketball. These 4 critical games are all evenly matched and the team that can put aside the distractions and go with the flow will be the victor. Perhaps the Bills need to trust the Force.

When the flow calls, you must listen.

 

 

drkelsey55 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minerva N Owl, this is truly an interesting post. Psychological flow states and breaks in and out of such states are real, but not directly quantifiable by "normal" mathematical or statistical methods. However arbitrary values can be assigned to some of these states in order to plug them into statistical and probabilistic models. The difficulty in doing such a thing centers upon how to define the factors that could affect outcomes in the model. The values are in and of themselves not "real," they are approximations created to the best of the model maker to reflect what he/she considers an important factor impacting upon the probability of future outcomes. Of course this is largely an empirical type of labor and the accuracy of models using such techniques depend entirely on how well attuned the model maker, or model making team is with reality. I am in agreement with you that this may be a methodology used just about everywhere models are made. The accuracy of the approximations used determining the accuracy of the model.

I am not an expert in sports predictive models, so let's use the market as an example of how predictive models can use psychological flow states to reach endpoints or outcomes (in case of market models, outcomes are buy or sell recommendations). The most common and widely use type of "flow model" applied to the market are Sentiment determinations. These are done by parsing multitudes of posts and twits regarding the market for specific words that will determine a preponderance of bullish or bearish sentiment. These models have been used with great success as long as a long upward or downward market trend is established. They do not work well in choppy or very volatile situations. The main problem with these kinds of analytical models is that they ultimately reflect the general consensus view of the market traders. And yes, the consensus view is likely to be wrong in choppy markets.

Betting has its own form of consensus formation in terms of the Vegas line. These estimates are created by the bet makers which are in the business of making money, but  depend in a large degree upon the public betting consensus to reach their estimated scores for the games. Bet makers are generally not known to go bankrupt, those that bet their money play that part. Again it is consensus against expertise. The expertise side tends to have a winning edge overall.

 A third method is to develop "synthetic data." Sentiment analysis tries to determine the likelihood of money making long or short but it is rather rudimentary in its approach. Synthetic data goes deeper and creates values that do not exist in reality but define the upward or downward moves. This data can be used in preddictive models with increased predictive accuracy.

Therefore, to provide a response to the overall questions in your post: It is possible to apply all kinds of mathematical and empirical methods to incorporate psychological flow factors into  predictive models. It is interesting that the Wiz and I were writing responses to this post at the same time. Since I deal more with the market than with sports, my answer was attuned more to the market, but the issues you raise in your post are correct and very important in fashioning predictive models.

If you (plural you, anybody) have any interest in "synthetic data" try checking  http://jonathankinlay.com

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Minerva N. Owl said:

This is a somewhat long “think-piece”, so it might not be to the taste of those who like to limit ideas to 140 characters.

Basketball, especially NCAA Div 1 Basketball, is frequently a game of streaks. We see it all the time: the Bills go on a streak, and suddenly they’re up 10 or 12 or more; then, after cruising for a bit, they lose focus. Nothing goes in. The defense breaks down. A bad pass, then a bad foul, and all of a sudden a big lead is squandered.

We’ve seen this pattern of “streaks” in each of the three games this year. We also saw it last year, and just about every year. Of course, last year, there were a number of big games in which a bad streak in the final minutes of the game had the Bills lose a game they probably should have won.

Part of what was positive about the Memphis game (Tue Nov 15) was that, although Memphis went on a streak with 4 minutes left in the game, the Bills were able to stem the tide.

Streaks are not unique to basketball. Anyone who has played horseshoes or golf or cornhole/bags or darts or any of a number of such games knows the experience when one is on a streak: an individual player or an entire team somehow enters the “flow” state, and everything seems to work.

In basketball games, the crowd notices when a team has entered the “flow” state, and a buzz of excitement fills the air. Those are special moments.

The leading expert on the “flow” state is a Hungarian psychologist with a strange name: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. His classic study is titled Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. He presents his central ideas about “flow” in this 18-minute TED talk.

Part of what has me thinking about “flow” – in addition to the streakiness of the Bills in the last couple games – is several comments made by the Wiz.

Caveat: I’ve benefited from reading the Wiz for many years. I'm grateful for his perspective, and I consider his pre-game reports "must reads" that allow me to enjoy each game in a more detailed, focused manner.

With that said, I want to take issue with, or at least qualify, something the Wiz wrote recently.

In the string titled, “Ratings and Rankings and Polls … Oh My”, the Wiz wrote that “most computer based rankings are living, breathing entities”. There’s an innocent sense in which the Wiz is using a metaphor: he’s responding to questions that people ask him about rankings, especially the puzzle that sometimes SLU wins a game against a higher ranked team, but the subsequent movement in the poll is not quite what’s expected. The comment by the Wiz makes it clear that he is using a sort of metaphor: rankings “change by the hour as games are being played”. In other words, he is not literally saying that the computer is alive, or that computers breath.

Computer programs, no matter how sophisticated, given the current state of technology, are definitely NOT “living, breathing entities”.

 

 

If we pursue this line of thought very far, we enter into pretty deep philosophical waters: What is it to be a living, breathing entity? What is life? To what extent can computers model life? To what extent can a quality (such as the “flow” state) be captured in a quantitative formula?

Without facing these questions head on, I think it’s worth noticing that some of what Csikszentmihalyi has to say on these matters is insightful. For example, Csikszentmihalyi identifies the following features of the “flow” state:

  1. Complete concentration on the task;
  2. Clarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback;
  3. Transformation of time;
  4. The experience is intrinsically rewarding;
  5. Effortlessness and ease;
  6. There is a balance between challenge and skills;
  7. Actions and awareness are merged, losing self-conscious rumination;
  8. There is a feeling of control over the task.

Csikszentmihalyi points to two ways in which one can enter or exit the flow state.  From one side, there is a movement through worry, anxiety, and arousal. On the other side, there is a movement from boredom, relaxation, and control.

It’s my impression that in almost every instance in which the Bills exit the flow state, they do so by becoming too relaxed, and they move toward sloppiness and perhaps boredom. Then, when they try to re-enter the flow state, they get stuck in anxiety and worry.

My hunch is that this lines up with what the Wiz means regarding his summary of the season so far: “inconsistently consistent” … “up and down” … “hot and cold”. I’m not sure whether the Wiz’s computer has a formula for those phrases. My hunch is that these are qualities, not quantifiables that are measurable with a computer metric. With that said, I don’t think descriptions of the "flow state" -- and the other states that surround flow -- are simply pure emotional mush. Rather, part of what’s involved in being a “living, breathing entity” of the human sort is that, while we can’t quite snap our fingers and move into the flow state, athletes and coaches can have some self-awareness of the team’s current state. When things become too relaxed, one can recognize the need to improve self-control; when one slips into anxiety and worry, one can re-gain a sense of self-mastery and confidence.

In my judgment, the formulas and analysis that the Wiz provides are very helpful for providing one perspective; at the same time, I find myself wondering whether this level of analysis can and should be complemented by attending to individual and team performance in terms of the flow-state as described by Csikszentmihalyi. If the Bills are going to learn how to navigate the “peaks and valleys” mentioned by the Wiz, my hunch is that they’ll need both approaches: analysis in terms of quantitative metrics and awareness of qualitative states of presence and engagement.

Thoughts?

As a musician, your post resonates. I loved Pixar's take on this.

Flow really gets at the heart of universal themes like order and chaos. Too much order (i.e. anxiety, worry, rumination) and you're stunted. Too much chaos, and you have no control.

There's a "divine balance" in life in religious speak, the "Force" in Star Wars, the "Yin and Yang" in Eastern philosophies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang). Anyone watch the latest season of Cobra Kai? Ignatian spirituality, which many of us alumni are familiar with, also emphasizes this balance with regards to the inner life. Psychodynamic and psychological literature has emphasized this since the days of Freud. The "entropic brain theory," growing in credibility within neuroscience circles, also plays into universal themes of order/chaos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...