‘Often wrong but never in doubt’

Over the past week, seemingly everyone and their mother had an opinion about U.S. gymnast Simone Biles withdrawing from the Olympics for mental health reasons.

For reasons I do not understand, people cared... like... A LOT.

Odd considering the sport of gymnastics, for many, barely registers in their consciousness but for once every four years. Or in this case, five years.

I've seen people accuse Biles of quitting on her team and country.

I've seen people call her weak, soft, and someone who buckles under pressure.

I've seen people lament that she is setting the example that its OK to quit when things get hard, and that people who support Biles' decision are glorifying quitting.

I've also seen — in more than one instance — people invoke Teddy Roosevelt's famous "Man in the Arena" speech.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena ... you can read the rest."

In the sports world, there's a phrase called "armchair quarterback" — everyone sitting on their couch or in their recliner sure do like to have an opinion about the athletes actually, ya know, playing the game.

Which is why invoking the "Man in the Arena" speech seemed so odd to me.

The vast majority of us will never know the athletic achievements of an athlete like Simone Biles, nor will we experience the pressure she faces. Without that background, to dissect and critique the competition decisions she makes is wildly misguided, considering the only people with a true grasp of the situation are Biles herself, her family, her coaches, and her teammates.

Which is why I asked the question on my social media: If someone — anyone — removes themselves from the "arena" in their life and says it's for mental health reasons, why is our first and only response not "I hope they're OK?"

It's perfectly fine to not have an opinion beyond that.

It just so happened that my guest on the show this week, Matthew Barzun, discussed the famous "Man in the Arena" speech as well, and he brought up a fascinating point: that while it sounds and feels good and dramatic, it's actually presenting us a false duality of choice.

You either stick around and fight it out, or you quit and sit it out.

And those are simply not the only two paths. Listen to the interview to hear Matthew's deeper explanation.

Matthew also wrote in his book (and we didn't get to discuss it on the show) that we so often adopt "a heavy voice that tries to convince yourself and others that you have it all figured out — that 'often wrong but never in doubt' tone of voice that is meant to sound certain and win arguments but sounds more than a little controlling."

And that's what most confused me this week. There was so much self-assuredness being tossed about, and for what gain? For what reason? For what end?

If we ourselves have never been in that arena, why do we feel so much pressure to argue a viewpoint or opinion that is so terribly ill-informed?

"Often wrong but never in doubt."

How about, instead, we lead with empathy, and we leave it at that.

That's my plan.