It is interesting how often cause and effect get confused, usually because two things are shown more or less unequivocally to be correlated - when one exists, the other often is present as well. Here is an example in the Daily Mail (U.K.) which describes a study finding that a person's memories of PE class - good or bad - predict their activity level later in life.
Those with good memories are active, those with bad memories are less so. The study, published in a sports medicine journal, interprets these findings as showing that bad memories impede activity, which is certainly possible.
On the other hand, isn't it more likely that lack of childhood coordination and athletic ability led to poor performance which resulted in bad memories, and that this lack of athleticism, not the memories, led to lower activity levels in adults? I think people engage in things at which they have good-to-superior ability, and tend to avoid those at which they are not talented.
Full disclosure: I was one of those kids who didn't excel at athletics. Did I regard PE as a drag? You bet. Do I now avoid activity-for-its-own-sake as opposed to activity-to-get-a-needed-task-accomplished? Certainly.
On the other hand, I excelled at intellectual skills and to this day voluntarily engage therein without recompense. Hence this blog. It is Human Nature 101, not rocket science. Presuming we have strengths, we play to them and, to the extent possible, avoid showcasing our weaknesses.
