To me I like this progression of Intention -> Attention -> Power -> Energy.
Without a clear Intention, you don't really have anything. What were you trying to do with the play?
Once there's some Intention, players can direct their Attention (a lot of what you were talking about int his article) to different aspects of play. A hitter who is putting Attention on their relationship to the ball is going to do some different things than a hitter who it putting Attention on their relationship to the block. Not necessarily better or worse, but could be better or worse for certain players at certain times.
Power might be something to maximize (generally jumping higher and hitting harder is good) but not always (setting more powerfully is not always appropriate) so sometimes it's a matter of getting it just right.
And as players mature, Energy management becomes important. Both intra-personally (am I too hyper and burning energy and losing focus or am I spiraling when making mistakes?) and inter-personally with the relationship between players.
And it's a loop because poor Energy management affects Attention and Power. Good Energy management helps maintain and even build those aspects. Etc etc
I really like this progression, especially the relationship between intention and attention. That resonates with how I've been thinking about it lately.
The one place I'd push back a bit is on power. To me, it feels like it mixes processes with outcomes. Intention and attention influence how an athlete interacts with the environment, but power seems more like one characteristic of the movement solution that emerges from that interaction. In volleyball, power and location are almost inseparable. Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it's taking a little off, finding the seam, tooling the block, or tipping short. Those aren't different because the athlete chose a different amount of power—they're different because they perceived different affordances.
I also wonder if what you're calling energy is actually closer to commitment. Reading your examples, it seems less about physiological energy and more about the ability to stay engaged with your intention despite mistakes, fatigue, or emotions. In ACT language, that feels a lot like committed action: repeatedly returning your attention to what matters, even when your mind wants to go elsewhere.
You've definitely got me thinking, though. I fully agree with the idea that intention shapes attention. I just wonder if the loop might be something like Intention → Attention → Perception-Action, with power emerging as one property of the solution and commitment helping us continually reconnect with our intention.
*I also wonder if what you're calling energy is actually closer to commitment. Reading your examples, it seems less about physiological energy and more about the ability to stay engaged with your intention despite mistakes, fatigue, or emotions. In ACT language, that feels a lot like committed action: repeatedly returning your attention to what matters, even when your mind wants to go elsewhere.*
I don't think that's a bad way to view it either. But probably more akin to what I'm calling Power. Power can be physical but I would say there's a mental and even emotional/spiritual dimension of Power and "commitment" would also not be a bad word for it.
But Energy = Power x Time so what I'm talking about is your ability to sustain power/commitment/investment/attention/etc over time. Attention is the currency of performance and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even something like temperature has been shown to affect cognitive performance. Elevated heart rates change the way your visual system operates (literal "tunnel vision") and can be caused by physical or mental stressors. Elite athletes regulate their heart rate in between plays better than intermediate athletes. Physically but also mentally. Team dynamics (player <-> player and player <-> coach) affect this because your nervous system doesn't recover if you perceive the environment to be dangerous. A team with a strong, supportive huddle gives every player a feeling of safety for a few seconds in between every play. Over a club tournament, those extra bits of recovery add up to better performance over time. Likewise, a coach who creates a feeling of anxiety in players is robbing between-play recovery.
I think I understand your point much better now, and I actually think we’re talking about two different—but equally important—questions.
The question I’m wrestling with in the article is how skilled action emerges in the moment. That’s why I’ve been so focused on intention, attention, perception, and action. I’m trying to understand how an athlete interacting with the environment arrives at one movement solution instead of another.
I think you’re describing something slightly different: what allows that process to be sustained over time. Your examples of heart rate, psychological safety, recovery between rallies, team dynamics, and fatigue all fit that question really well. They don’t necessarily determine which affordance an athlete perceives in a given instant, but they absolutely influence their capacity to keep perceiving, adapting, and performing over the course of a match or tournament.
Where I still hesitate is with the term power, because I think it mixes those two conversations. In volleyball, power is one property of the movement solution that emerges from perception-action coupling, much like location, spin, or tempo. Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it’s a roll shot or a tip. Those emerge because the athlete perceived different affordances, not because they selected a different amount of power.
That said, I think your broader point about sustaining high-quality attention is a really important one. I just wonder if it belongs in a complementary framework about state, regulation, and commitment rather than inside the moment-to-moment perception-action loop itself.
Either way, I really appreciate the discussion. It’s revealing to me that there are probably two interacting systems here: one explaining how skilled action emerges, and another explaining what allows that process to be maintained over time. Both matter, but I don’t think they’re quite the same thing.
*They don’t necessarily determine which affordance an athlete perceives in a given instant*
In a vacuum yes, but we're never in a vacuum. Your body also perceives its action capacity in a given moment. At the start of a hike, you might quickly gallop-step down a moderate slope, feeling you are fresh enough to hit the brakes toward the bottom. At the end of a long day when you're tired, you might shuffle more slowly and carefully down that same slope.
That’s a great example, and I actually agree with it. I don’t think a fatigued hiker and a fresh hiker perceive exactly the same affordances because the organism has changed. In ecological terms, though, I think I’d describe that as a change in the individual (organismic) constraints rather than another stage in the performance loop.
That’s actually what I found most compelling about your previous comment. Heart rate, fatigue, social safety, emotional regulation, etc. all change the athlete’s relationship with the environment, which changes the affordances available to them. To me, that’s a really important point.
I guess where I’m still drawing the line is between what shapes the perception-action process and the perception-action process itself. State absolutely shapes it, but I’m not sure it belongs as another step in the sequence. It feels more like a dynamic constraint acting on the whole system.
Yeah I agree. I wasn't necessarily talking about it as different or changing the relationship between athlete and environment.. I'm more talking from a coaching perspective about the factors I consider. In the beginning, they are also in progression. Meaning: I'm not too worried about an athlete's power if they don't have any intention and don't know how to direct attention. Etc
*Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it's taking a little off, finding the seam, tooling the block, or tipping short. Those aren't different because the athlete chose a different amount of power—they're different because they perceived different affordances.*
I would say those are completely different intentions, not differing amounts of power. Given that you decided to tip, did you put the right touch on the ball? Given that you decided to set the middle and judged which route she was on and where she was in relation to you as a setter, did you put the right touch on the ball?
Great. Thank you!
To me I like this progression of Intention -> Attention -> Power -> Energy.
Without a clear Intention, you don't really have anything. What were you trying to do with the play?
Once there's some Intention, players can direct their Attention (a lot of what you were talking about int his article) to different aspects of play. A hitter who is putting Attention on their relationship to the ball is going to do some different things than a hitter who it putting Attention on their relationship to the block. Not necessarily better or worse, but could be better or worse for certain players at certain times.
Power might be something to maximize (generally jumping higher and hitting harder is good) but not always (setting more powerfully is not always appropriate) so sometimes it's a matter of getting it just right.
And as players mature, Energy management becomes important. Both intra-personally (am I too hyper and burning energy and losing focus or am I spiraling when making mistakes?) and inter-personally with the relationship between players.
And it's a loop because poor Energy management affects Attention and Power. Good Energy management helps maintain and even build those aspects. Etc etc
I really like this progression, especially the relationship between intention and attention. That resonates with how I've been thinking about it lately.
The one place I'd push back a bit is on power. To me, it feels like it mixes processes with outcomes. Intention and attention influence how an athlete interacts with the environment, but power seems more like one characteristic of the movement solution that emerges from that interaction. In volleyball, power and location are almost inseparable. Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it's taking a little off, finding the seam, tooling the block, or tipping short. Those aren't different because the athlete chose a different amount of power—they're different because they perceived different affordances.
I also wonder if what you're calling energy is actually closer to commitment. Reading your examples, it seems less about physiological energy and more about the ability to stay engaged with your intention despite mistakes, fatigue, or emotions. In ACT language, that feels a lot like committed action: repeatedly returning your attention to what matters, even when your mind wants to go elsewhere.
You've definitely got me thinking, though. I fully agree with the idea that intention shapes attention. I just wonder if the loop might be something like Intention → Attention → Perception-Action, with power emerging as one property of the solution and commitment helping us continually reconnect with our intention.
*I also wonder if what you're calling energy is actually closer to commitment. Reading your examples, it seems less about physiological energy and more about the ability to stay engaged with your intention despite mistakes, fatigue, or emotions. In ACT language, that feels a lot like committed action: repeatedly returning your attention to what matters, even when your mind wants to go elsewhere.*
I don't think that's a bad way to view it either. But probably more akin to what I'm calling Power. Power can be physical but I would say there's a mental and even emotional/spiritual dimension of Power and "commitment" would also not be a bad word for it.
But Energy = Power x Time so what I'm talking about is your ability to sustain power/commitment/investment/attention/etc over time. Attention is the currency of performance and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even something like temperature has been shown to affect cognitive performance. Elevated heart rates change the way your visual system operates (literal "tunnel vision") and can be caused by physical or mental stressors. Elite athletes regulate their heart rate in between plays better than intermediate athletes. Physically but also mentally. Team dynamics (player <-> player and player <-> coach) affect this because your nervous system doesn't recover if you perceive the environment to be dangerous. A team with a strong, supportive huddle gives every player a feeling of safety for a few seconds in between every play. Over a club tournament, those extra bits of recovery add up to better performance over time. Likewise, a coach who creates a feeling of anxiety in players is robbing between-play recovery.
I think I understand your point much better now, and I actually think we’re talking about two different—but equally important—questions.
The question I’m wrestling with in the article is how skilled action emerges in the moment. That’s why I’ve been so focused on intention, attention, perception, and action. I’m trying to understand how an athlete interacting with the environment arrives at one movement solution instead of another.
I think you’re describing something slightly different: what allows that process to be sustained over time. Your examples of heart rate, psychological safety, recovery between rallies, team dynamics, and fatigue all fit that question really well. They don’t necessarily determine which affordance an athlete perceives in a given instant, but they absolutely influence their capacity to keep perceiving, adapting, and performing over the course of a match or tournament.
Where I still hesitate is with the term power, because I think it mixes those two conversations. In volleyball, power is one property of the movement solution that emerges from perception-action coupling, much like location, spin, or tempo. Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it’s a roll shot or a tip. Those emerge because the athlete perceived different affordances, not because they selected a different amount of power.
That said, I think your broader point about sustaining high-quality attention is a really important one. I just wonder if it belongs in a complementary framework about state, regulation, and commitment rather than inside the moment-to-moment perception-action loop itself.
Either way, I really appreciate the discussion. It’s revealing to me that there are probably two interacting systems here: one explaining how skilled action emerges, and another explaining what allows that process to be maintained over time. Both matter, but I don’t think they’re quite the same thing.
*They don’t necessarily determine which affordance an athlete perceives in a given instant*
In a vacuum yes, but we're never in a vacuum. Your body also perceives its action capacity in a given moment. At the start of a hike, you might quickly gallop-step down a moderate slope, feeling you are fresh enough to hit the brakes toward the bottom. At the end of a long day when you're tired, you might shuffle more slowly and carefully down that same slope.
That’s a great example, and I actually agree with it. I don’t think a fatigued hiker and a fresh hiker perceive exactly the same affordances because the organism has changed. In ecological terms, though, I think I’d describe that as a change in the individual (organismic) constraints rather than another stage in the performance loop.
That’s actually what I found most compelling about your previous comment. Heart rate, fatigue, social safety, emotional regulation, etc. all change the athlete’s relationship with the environment, which changes the affordances available to them. To me, that’s a really important point.
I guess where I’m still drawing the line is between what shapes the perception-action process and the perception-action process itself. State absolutely shapes it, but I’m not sure it belongs as another step in the sequence. It feels more like a dynamic constraint acting on the whole system.
Yeah I agree. I wasn't necessarily talking about it as different or changing the relationship between athlete and environment.. I'm more talking from a coaching perspective about the factors I consider. In the beginning, they are also in progression. Meaning: I'm not too worried about an athlete's power if they don't have any intention and don't know how to direct attention. Etc
*Sometimes the best solution is maximum power, sometimes it's taking a little off, finding the seam, tooling the block, or tipping short. Those aren't different because the athlete chose a different amount of power—they're different because they perceived different affordances.*
I would say those are completely different intentions, not differing amounts of power. Given that you decided to tip, did you put the right touch on the ball? Given that you decided to set the middle and judged which route she was on and where she was in relation to you as a setter, did you put the right touch on the ball?