That's interesting. For me that paper is more than readable – probably because I know all the terms, as I studied SDT extensively. But I can understand how terms like "introjected" can sound alien.
Before replying to expectations vs reality, we need to establish and agree on facts. Are you saying that in US, across all states and all sports, competition prizes has been replaced by participation trophies and you see a negative trends in sports participation?
Re:How AI is changing gymnastics judging
by somenameforme on Saturday February 03, 2024 @12:51AM
(#39237880)
It's "readable" in the most technical sense of the word, but it's exceptionally obfuscated and needlessly convoluted. Whatever that paper is trying to say could be succinctly and clearly expressed in a page or two, at most. But it wouldn't look as what the authors perceive to be "sciency", because behind the grandiloquent language is invariably a pretty simple premise and experimentation (or a survey in this case) invariably designed to confirm biases, rather than challenge them. It's ubiquitous in the social sciences (see: Sokal experiment) and only going to get much worse with the advent of LLMs that will enable streamlined obfuscation.
And no I'm (obviously?) not speaking of every single instance, as for a topic like this there will always be some exception or another. I am saying that as an aggregate - sports participation is down, and participation trophies are up.
Back to speaking like humans, the thing you are not responding to is expectations vs reality. Participation trophies are near ubiquitous in places like the US, and there's an ongoing attack on merit across a wide array of domains - let alone efforts to recognize and reward it. Were this having the effects you claim, would you not expect to see absolutely skyrocketing sports participation? In reality it's down, in many areas sharply so.