Dealing
with the Illusion of the Nice Guys
Tommy
Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor
and Chair
Director,
Exercise Physiology Laboratories
Department
of Exercise Physiology
The
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
We need a new kind of courage that will neither
exploit nor manipulate students or others.
Most
of us know what the bad guys looks like, what they do, and why. To begin with, the fast talking salesman who
knocks on the door is a good reason to say “no thank you.” The snake oil salesman still exists along
with all kinds of promotion scandals.
There will always be energetic people who pressure others to buy their
products or support their projects. Unfortunately,
many of the fast-talking salesmen do not seem to care about whether the products
are worth the money spent on them. This
stereotype and product promotions live on.
Of course not every salesman is a fast-talking crook or even called
“salesman.” Today, they have fancy
titles like, “Customer Specialist” or “Account Executive.”
Just
for the sake of comparison, this is not the case with the teacher at your
college? Most college teachers are not pushy
and/or insensitive to the concerns of their students (their customers)? A few teachers are “big time pushers.” They promote specific organizations and
certifications, which are products too.
So, as you can see, colleges have “Customer Specialist,” too. They are called “College Teachers.” Of course, the “customers” don’t usually
think of their teacher’s behavior as being pushy, fast-talking, or
aggressive. After all, teachers are the
nice guys who usually monitor their behavior in accordance with the rules of
the profession. Teachers are believed to
promote the welfare of their students.
Hence, it is fashionable to dismiss any idea that teachers would
purposefully mislead their students.
One college teacher had this to say, “I'm not a
salesman, but I do sell. I’m not sure
anyone would think of the things I sell in a negative way.”
Admittedly,
the nature of teaching encourages the appearance that no one is out to get you. College teachers are expected to be non-threatening
and trustworthy. Indeed, teachers are seen
as being almost ridiculously repetitive, day after day, in their lectures. There is little to be disarmed about, except
of course the students’ fear of failing the course. And, even those students who attend class
often sit throughout the course without saying a word, they believe it isn’t
necessary. Because the teacher is
acknowledged as the nice guy, the teacher isn’t going to complicate the
student’s life in front of the other students.
The academic ethos has grown out of decades of teachers interacting with
students in a reliable and ethical manner.
However,
what many students don’t get is that the “nice guys” may very well not be nice
at all. The obligations of the college
teacher are many-sided. It implies above
all a concern for demonstrating respect for the administration. The truth is that some teachers actually
don’t care what student thinks. In fact,
there are teachers who are happy to provide a ready-made way of thinking to the
unthinking students. The discovery and
transmission of truth represent more of a textbook definition of teaching than
its daily reality. Indeed, the role of
many teachers is to produce quick results by telling students “what to think.” And, in short, these students are not disarmed
by the appearance and status of their teachers and, thus (without knowing it)
are especially vulnerable to negative persuasion techniques.
The inequality in the possession of knowledge gives
to the possessors of knowledge large opportunities to abuse that position of
superiority. – Edward Shils, The Academic
Ethic
Foremost
in my mind is the concern that many students don’t get they are being played by
teachers who have a hidden agenda. This reality
is not evident to students for many different reasons. Teachers believe they can get away with their
behavior because they know students aren’t aware of the ongoing persuasion to
think in a specific way. They expect students
to hold them in high esteem. And, the
perception of most students is that under no circumstances would teachers
purposefully mislead the class. The idea
just sounds crazy. What’s more, teaching
is a profession in itself. There are
standards against which teachers are responsible during their interaction with
students. Except for occasional
affirmation of professional ethics and memos regarding conflicts of interests,
the activities of teachers are seldom analyzed.
On
one level, students should read the book [1], “Is Sports Nutrition for Sale?” In recent years, few issues have generated
more controversy or created more anxiety than “sports gone wild.” To the surprise of many, the consequences of
sports nutritionists failing to abide by a code of ethics are huge for athletes
and society. On another level, the
bottom line is that most students are not aware of the subtle ways teachers control
what they think, particularly in the area of sports nutrition. This is rather self-evident in much of the
sports nutrition literature that is clearly driven to promote sports supplements
products. And, sense the student’s right
of self-decision shapes the teacher’s duty to reveal all sides to an issue, the
role of the teacher must be measured by the student’s need, and that need is
all the information in the form of an education.
Manipulation and Vulnerability
Levine’s
[2] point of view rings a serious note of truth: “My ultimate interest is how
people are manipulated to do things they never thought they’d do and are later
sorry they did.” Some college students
say their experience is exactly consistent with this line of thinking [3]. This is especially true when students do not
know the truth about most subjects, including the academic and career
differences between exercise science and exercise physiology [4]. Without knowing why, students generally
downplay their vulnerability. In many
ways, the “downplay,” which is often a natural response to defending themselves
and their sense of security, is a mistake.
To be sure, when students are either not presented all sides to an issue
or do not want to entertain alternative ideas, the academic obligation of the
college is not being met. And, yet it is
no exception to hear a student say, “Honestly, my teachers would not psychologically
manipulate what I think. I just don’t
believe it.”
What
is most remarkable is that the same persuasion carried out by teachers goes on
semester after semester, year after year.
Few students wake up and see what is going on before them. Most do not, although students have the right
to know all the relevant details about the pursuit and transmission of truths,
such as the methods in promoting sports supplements and athletics as well as degree
programs and career options. Instead, they
keep getting sucked into more of the same, even the need for a graduate degree
in exercise science! The teacher’s persuasion
is so well done that students simply do not learn from their mistakes, which
begs the question: “What could be done
better to help students choose careers and judge for themselves the accuracy of
their education?” In other words, what
is thought to be the truth about a topic or career-matter is inevitably subject
to change but the changes are not arbitrary.
The changes are subject to the obligation of the college teacher to
discover and enunciate the truth.
The
teacher’s obligation to teach the truth does not require the teacher to not
teach his or her views. But, when the
teacher presents “views” as though they were the “actual facts,” it is a problem. When this is done in class, it is the role of
a “salesman” and not the teacher. New
ideas, such as the ASEP organization and board certification for exercise
physiologists, like new research topics and techniques, must inevitably have its
place in the classroom. The obligation
to “how to think” must be met by every teacher.
Yet, it is clear that this obligation is not being met. In fact, some of my colleagues have commented
that it is very likely that some exercise physiology teachers, who are
interested in keeping their job for many different reasons, fully understand
their intent to purposefully manipulate students? They will go out of their way to tell
students what a great career they will have in exercise science or kinesiology.
However, it is simply not the right
thing to do. Exercise physiologists
should come together and argue for an ethical approach to their work. Otherwise, the academic community can no
longer be considered the nice guys!
Gullibility begets gullibility – Robert Levine
When
are the students going to wake up is a good question? But, this isn’t just their problem. When are the exercise physiology teachers going
to get the big picture? They, too, are
part of the problem and the chaos that surrounds the 21st century exercise
physiology. They have had enough time to
learn from their indifference. Clearly,
this isn’t rocket science! There is no
profession of exercise science, regardless of what others may think [5]. It’s a self-deluding logic to think otherwise. But, in the end, the clever and deceptive college
teachers (and, often times, managers of cardiac rehabilitation programs) feed
the illusion nonetheless that students and exercise physiologists are above
being manipulated. They are absorbed in
the endless struggle to think about exercise physiology as they have always
done so. Teachers respond to students
and others what they already believe and what their experience has been. Experience is important, but there are times
when teachers must choose to rethink if not reprogram themselves.
Ignorance vs. Knowledge
Interestingly,
Charles Darwin observed [6] that: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge.” It is well
established that exercise physiologists are confident in what they do, yet have
little realism when it comes to conformity.
Their desire to conform to what they think is exercise physiology is matched
by their illusion of confidence in their past experiences. In other words, the way most exercise
physiologists view the American Society of Exercise Physiologists is determined
by who they are. It is as if they cannot
be changed and, perhaps, that is the bottom line after all. They are their own worst enemy. They have managed to short-circuit themselves
when it comes to the 21st century view of exercise physiology. And, if you think you are immune, think again
while answering the following questions:
- Are you a member of
ASEP?
- Have you actively
supported the ASEP organization?
- Do you value the ASEP
Board Certification (i.e., the EPC credential)?
- Is your academic
program accredited by the ASEP Board of Accreditation?
If
you answered “no” the list of questions, consider yourself guided by yesterday’s
thinking. Clearly, answers to similar
questions for a physical therapist would be “yes.” There is little room here to disagree. The duty and responsibility of physical
therapists are to support physical therapy.
Dietitians would agree with respect to the profession of Dietetics and
their professional organization, the American Dietetic Association. This split-personality with exercise science
and exercise physiology is not very effective.
Worse yet, members of other professions who get it are justified in
rejecting students who “think” they are exercise physiologists. They understand that the students have not
been properly taught to know themselves.
Perhaps Leo Tolstoy said it best, “Everyone thinks of changing the
world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
Becoming
self-aware is not easy. Self-awareness requires
work, effort, and persistence. Exercise
physiologists aren’t alone in their ability to cause problems for
themselves. But, if exercise
physiologists want to be respected in their use of exercise as medicine, they must
do what the other professions have done to earn credibility and respect. This means that looking for ways to slip
under the radar no longer works. Weekend
warrior certifications are meaningless.
Equally important and related is the obvious pattern of deception in
sports nutrition [7]. Exercise
physiologists must be willing to learn from other professionals. They must help students understand the
embedded messages in their sports nutrition lectures, particularly as it
relates to popular products. To those who
have not ignored this conflict of interest, their mistrust of colleagues who
aren’t willing to stop manipulating students is warranted [8].
However
anyone looks at it, the content and concepts taught in classrooms are
inherently value-laden. It is clear that
mixed messages merely make matters worse by either confusing students or
encouraging them to win at all costs.
From an ethical point of view, both are bad and cannot be condoned in
college classrooms. The teacher is
responsible for teaching students “how to think.” Students cannot learn how to think when told
“what to think.” The latter is not a
good way to teach. It does little to add
in a positive way to the students. Central
to this understanding is the important functions of critical thinking and the
teaching of every word (as well as the account of the student’s silence) in the
classroom. Teachers who do this add to
the education of students; those who do not subtract from the student’s
education.
As we must account for every idle word – so we must
for every idle silence. – Benjamin Franklin
The Teacher and Teaching!
Okay,
not all college teachers are nice guys.
This is also true for politicians, preachers, medical doctors, relatives,
and friends. At times it is difficult to
know the nice guy from the bad guy. When
it comes to college courses, students must pay attention to the person in front
of the classroom. That person almost
never looks like a “quack” or a “consultant” for a business product. But, read between the lines a little, given
what the person doesn’t say and his or her motives are likely to become
obvious. Some teachers are selling a
product(s) and, perhaps, have convinced themselves they are not doing so. Others are fully educated to what they should
be doing. Still others, having indulged
in many of the excesses of a doctorate education, are convinced they are too
smart not to know the difference between credible classroom content and advertisements. And, never forget that those who do research
are often the super sales person. They
probably understand the art of persuasion better than most. Their perspective may be expressed through
their research papers and talks. Their
self-centered and self-serving needs are often the key to understanding the
fast-talking salesman.
A
big part of the answer to this problem lies with students. Sure, they are students and, yes, they are
subject to the teacher’s demands and so forth.
But, this is no reason for students to be so willing to transfer all their
thinking to the teacher. Giving up
control over learning and accessing knowledge is a shortcut to increased
vulnerability to “what to think.” Students
can help stop the illusion of good teaching by holding teachers accountable,
especially shaky comments and business-related content. At no time should they act out the role of a
mindless student. The deadly sin in the
student’s relationship with teachers is failing to ask questions, failing to
speak up, and failing to learn. But, of
course, it isn’t necessarily the student’s fault. Some teachers, like some poker players, are
smart when it comes to reading their students and knowing what they can get
away with.
For
example, teachers who see students entering the classroom dressed as athletes
know just how badly they want to win.
Hence, it isn’t odd at all that these teachers (unknown to the students
as paid consultants) know the power and illusion of promoting performance-enhancing
substances. Also, if the teachers are
without a strong code of ethics, there is no reason to feel guilty when pushing
performance enhancing substances on to young men and women. So, imagine a teacher saying:
I know athletes play to win. You play to win, don’t you? The athlete says, “Yes, of course.” Are you willing to do anything to win?” The student-athletes answer: “Yes.” The teacher sees a clear opportunity to
promote sports supplements. Am I
correct, you know how important it is to win and the necessity of sports
supplements to ensure your win? “Yes, of
course,” the students say. That is why
I’m spending so much time in this class on creatine. To be the best athlete, to win, and to
compete successfully with your peers, you need creatine!
Teachers, Honesty, and Illusions
Picking
up cues and spreading the illusion is big business in sports nutrition and in
exercise physiology [1]. The really good
teachers, those with a few publications under their belt, can turn their classroom
content into a sports supplement store of opportunities and big bucks. Undaunted, they move about in the classroom
spreading the illusion with full speed ahead.
They care less about the ethical issues that speak to the professionalism
of exercise physiology [9]. Conflicts of
interests do not enter their minds and, to make matters worse, conflicts
between the profession’s needs and the rules of propaganda are intensified by
the competitiveness within the sports supplement industry.
Long
story short, the object of the teachers’ thinking is not geared to the
thoughtful consideration for the well-being of the students. The academic and professional concerns of the
students are ignored. For this reason, not
all college teachers are nice guys! They
know that a sucker is born every minute, and they know that the athletes are
customers with a big motivation to win.
With the student’s trust in the teaching process secured, the role of
the teacher-salesman is pretty much a given.
This is clearly a “no win” situation for the students. Also, the growing fear, if it is not dealt
with, is the very real likelihood of the lack of professionalism having a
negative effect on exercise physiology.
The
teaching profession is known for its honesty and integrity. Teachers don’t allow students to cheat on
tests or to abuse the teaching process with disruptive behavior in the
classroom. Hence, it is very different
when the teachers cannot be trusted.
Trustworthiness is critical to credibility in the classroom. Teachers without credibility are not
trustworthy. This is a problem because
students are primed to believe that teachers have their best interests at
heart. Hence, when students ask why more
academic exercise physiologists are not part of the ASEP organization, they may
have just answered their own question.
Teachers cannot be the stereotypical, fast-talking salesman and teachers
with integrity at the same time. It is a
contradiction.
Teachers
are not nice guys if they can be bought.
This is a problem that seems to be poorly understood in exercise
physiology. Too many sports supplement
companies are interested in promoting research and buying equipment for
teachers to believe it has no effect on students and/or the lecture
content. In fact, it is rather
frightening to think about because no one seems interested in questioning the
celebrity status and/or endorsements of college teachers who write articles for
fitness publications and show up at meetings to support their products. Similarly, no one seems concerned about the
celebrity who plugs questionable products in review articles with wording that
is more of a declared science than a real science [10].
Remember
the expression, “Nice guys finish last.”
Well, it may be the reality of the “actual” nice guys in exercise
physiology in the not too distant future if they (i.e., the trustworthy
teachers) do not speak up. This opinion
could be viewed as too harsh except for the fact it is true. Disguising exercise physiology via exercise
science and/or promoting sports supplements as objective information, as though
promoted by the profession of exercise physiology, conveys the impression of
either not knowing the criteria for professionalism or trying to sell a product
for status and/or money. None of this is
a win-win in exercise physiology. It
might seem, then, that college teachers would get it. There is a fix. It is called ethical thinking. Exercise physiologists should not ignore this
point, as all professionals have a code of ethics.
Propaganda is Still Propaganda
Exercise
physiologists are not accustomed to reading about propaganda or the idea that
they may be contributing to it. Hence,
when they read about it (i.e., if they were to take the time to do so), they
are likely not to agree even when the propaganda is dressed up as science. Why they fail to get it isn’t a mystery. It is all about the endorsements and consultant
fees. They may not know that presenting
propaganda as college course content is still propaganda. Indeed, in more ways than one, as Levine [2]
says, “The line between education and propaganda has become especially
blurry….” Young people are particularly
prone to misinformation inserted into lectures.
This is exactly why arguing for one’s own self-interest when it is a
conflict of interest is an inherent contradiction in trustworthiness. But, still, teachers are more than willing to
give up their trustworthiness for big bucks.
It is sad, indeed.
Nice
guys know how the rules operate, especially if they are considered experts in
the field. They know the importance of a
code of ethics and the reasons for the conflict of interest document. Unethical behavior is all too apparent
throughout society in all fields of work.
The behavior is hurtful and damaging.
It is important that teachers can be trusted, especially if they are
involved with potentially questionable deals and/or research. After all, students are neither prepared to
understand the conflict of interest nor know how to handle the
information. Also, from the student’s
perspective, it seems logical that the goal of the sports nutritionist, in
particular, is to ensure that athletes become star performer! What could possibly be wrong with that goal? Well, everything is wrong with it when the
behavior is unethical. One example might
be the teacher’s sincerity, which has the potential for being compromised by
the travel expenses and speaking fees, when lecturing to athletes about the
virtues of sports supplements.
There
is a choice to be made when members of a profession work to professionalize
it. It is an ethical choice. It is a bias in favor of professionalism and
accountability. Over time, students interested
in the profession and members in the heat of change will benefit. They will know the “nice guys” and the
propaganda for what they are. It is
really rather simple. The message itself
eventually becomes the central point, that is, professional development is good
and the use of sports supplements (as one conflicting piece of the whole) is
bad. So, given this understanding, as
the process unfolds, students can join in and help with the change process or
they can allow themselves to be used or continually taken in. Yet, even today after nearly 10 years of
sharing with students the professionalism of exercise physiology (i.e., when telling
students the truth), some (not all) come across as not being interested since
the illusion of the nice guy has become justified in their minds. Some have swallowed the nice guy’s message
and have become entrapped by it. Of
course, the best way to deal with propaganda and any activity that doesn’t have
the student’s best interests at heart is to understand that it exists and, then,
talk and write about it as often as possible.
Persuasion
is not a new weapon of organizational politics.
It is actually the norm, and it is carried out by anyone with influence
and who understands the power of manipulation.
CEOs of the business sector are experts in its use. Please appreciate that persuasion itself
isn’t the problem. Rather, the problem
is persuasion without accountability. It
is the deception that is wrong. When
teachers use persuasion to motivate students, they are accountable for what
they say. There is no deception involved. Persuasion, therefore, is not the
problem. It is needed to clarify values
and arrive at decisions in a timely fashion.
This is why professionals study persuasion techniques and how to use them
to render the best results. They know
that misguided persuasion can mislead and hurt individuals in all kinds of
ways.
The
illusion of the nice guy, particularly when it appears to support traditional
practices, is still an illusion. Whether
it is the message that some organization other than ASEP is the right
organization for exercise physiologists or that sports supplements are ethical
and required for athletes to perform well, it is an illusion of a distorted reality. The best way to keep from adding insult to
injury is to get all exercise physiologists on the same page. The concept is simple, yet difficult to do in
a short period of time. Everybody is
busy doing their thing. Eventually it
will become self-evident that exercise physiologists need to know where they
are or where they are going. Sure, there
will some who will never get it.
There are some people that if they don’t know, you
can’t tell them. – Louis Armstrong
Hanging Together and Speaking Up
Not
surprisingly, the nice guy is blinded by the decades of thinking he or she is
not susceptible to doing anything wrong.
Is it that these guys have failed to learn from circumstances and
experiences and, thus have not changed? As
difficult as it may be for college teachers and others to admit it, they should
be encouraged to acknowledge their own role in manipulating others [2]. Students should be taught to recognize their
gullibility and, yes, to recognize the illusion of the nice guys. No doubt it will not be easy to teach about
the illusion that becomes a person’s reality.
No one values knowing they were fooled by simple tactics of mind control
and persuasion.
It
will be a formidable task to teach students how to think for themselves. Yet, however difficult it will be, it must be
done. Students need an alternative
choice to using sports supplements.
Exercise physiologists must come to an understanding of the problems
they bring on themselves when they fail to support their own professional
organization. They must learn to avoid
being trapped in yesterday’s thinking, seeing exercise physiology from the
perspective of someone who has something to gain from their decision, and
failing to evaluate the situation they find themselves. It is the way of the future. And, perhaps, Benjamin Franklin said it best:
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall hang
separately.”
Maintaining
strong alliances during times of conflict has a positive impact on investment
in one’s future. These alliances are also
critical, if not, imperative for students and their teachers if they are to be
saved from the indifference that surrounds propaganda. Singly and collectively, students and exercise
physiologists should ask disconfirming questions [2] to better understand persuasion
techniques used by the nice guys. Using
critical thinking skills can help, especially when it comes to the issues and
concerns that speak to the professionalism of exercise physiology [1, 11]. Also, understanding the pressures that result
from “groupthink” is an excellent step in dealing with the nice guys [12]. In short, why not stop being hesitant about saying
to someone who is addressing the ASEP organization that it doesn’t make sense
to join that organization? It is not the
professional organization of exercise physiologists. That is a fact, and it is the exercise
physiologist’s reality.
Until
then, that is, until the exercise physiology profession can stand on its own
feet, everyone should appreciate that the “illusion of nice guys” carries with
it weapons of “ridicule” and “censorship” for those who look to get out from
under its spell. Learn not to be afraid
of criticism or those who want to keep you in their spell. Deal with both and learn from disagreements
and conflicts. Learn to be a skeptic and
grow in the knowledge that exploitation in the classroom is never a good
thing. And, remember that persuasion is
not the same as exploitation. Everyone uses
persuasion to get along in life, to get things done, and motivate ourselves and
others. The difference is that when persuasion
is done right, it is positive not negative, it is done with integrity not
deception, and it benefits everyone not one person or the bottom line of an
industry.
Every
one of us leaves a piece of what we are in what we do. Today we are faced with the decision “should
I do this” or “should I do that.” The
fate of students often unknowingly lies in the balance. Their education depends on the path chosen by
the teacher. Every teacher can, if he or
she wishes, engage in extraordinary paths of development, and the teacher can
transform the students. They can become
warriors inspired to learn and to represent the notion that change, new ideas,
and new interpretations, are in their best interest. And, just as Lecomte Du Nouy said in Human Destiny, “Just as food cannot be
digested without being masticated, so ideas cannot be assimilated without
having been thought over and understood.”
There is nothing inherently difficult about most things in college
classrooms that students cannot figure out if they are willing to do so. Why not make the effort of “masticating” the
yesterday’s thinking by taking breaking it down into its obvious pieces? And, yes, then, why not replace it with
today’s thinking that is neither superficial nor exploitive?
The
time has come for all students and teachers of exercise physiology to become
conscious of the “nice guys” in keeping exercise physiology as it has been for
decades. Everyone shares a
responsibility in the 21st century transformation of exercise physiology. But this professional responsibility can be
realized only if those who care about exercise physiology as a healthcare
profession realize the effort of others, the significance of their negative
persuasion, and if they have faith in themselves. ASEP exercise physiologists must deal with
the illusion of nice guys through “word of mouth” and publications just as the
nice guys are doing. They cannot fight
the nice guys by keeping silent, or avoiding them. However, strength of character and the power
of a vision can be used to do so. The honest
and impartial observers who are aware of the struggles will recognize the
victor and, therefore, will lead inevitably to the professionalism of exercise
physiology.
________________________________________
References
- Boone, T. (2006). Is Sports Nutrition for Sale? Nova Science Publishing, Inc.
- Levine, R. (2003). The Power of Persuasion. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Boone, T.
(2001). Professional Development of Exercise Physiology.
The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd
- Boone, T.
(2006). Speaking the Truth about Exercise Science and Exercise Physiology.
Professionalization of Exercise
Physiologyonline. 9:8 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/SpeakingTheTruth.html
- prof of ex science
- Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to Sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
- Boone, T. (2002). Exercise Physiology Quackery
and Consumer Fraud. Professionalization
of Exercise Physiologyonline. 5:5 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ExercisePhysiologyQuackery.html
- Boone, T. (2004). Cheating in Sports: What Should
Exercise Physiologists Think? Professionalization
of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:7 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/CheatingWhatExercisePhysiologistsThink.html
- Boone, T. (2003). Dietary "Sports" Supplements:
The University Teacher’s Role in Teaching Values? Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:7
[Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/TeachingVALUES.html
- Boone, T. (2006).
Athletics is Over the Edge. [Online] http://www.boonethink.com
- Boone, T. (2006). Exercise Physiology: Professional Issues,
Organizational Concerns, and Ethical Trends. The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.
- Boone, T. (2007).
Dealing with Leadership, Groupthink, and Indifference. Professionalization of Exercise
Physiologyonline. 10:3 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Groupthink_Indifference.html
- Du Nouy, L. (1947). Human Destiny. New
York, NY: The New American
Library of World Literature, Inc., [Mentor
Books].