Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports(mako.cc)
mako.cc
Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/cultivated-disinterest-in-professional-sports
510 comments
I love playing sports and always have. But I have major issues with categorizing everyone who has issues with them as elitist.
Some of us dislike them because they're destructive to society. I'm sure I'm not the only one who went to a high school where athletics were more important than academics, and not going to the football game was worth a couple nitpicked points off on your chemistry quiz or some teacher who became a teacher solely to coach had you spend their class taking notes from a text book every day while they jawed around with other coaches in the back room.
I feel like sports culture deprives lots of regular public high school students of an education, and I don't think it's elitist at all to dislike professional sports for their contribution to this mess.
I love sports, but every time I watch or support them I feel like I'm destroying civil society and undermining democracy and helping to destroy the last vestiges of effective public education.
And I'm not elite or upper class.
Some of us dislike them because they're destructive to society. I'm sure I'm not the only one who went to a high school where athletics were more important than academics, and not going to the football game was worth a couple nitpicked points off on your chemistry quiz or some teacher who became a teacher solely to coach had you spend their class taking notes from a text book every day while they jawed around with other coaches in the back room.
I feel like sports culture deprives lots of regular public high school students of an education, and I don't think it's elitist at all to dislike professional sports for their contribution to this mess.
I love sports, but every time I watch or support them I feel like I'm destroying civil society and undermining democracy and helping to destroy the last vestiges of effective public education.
And I'm not elite or upper class.
> I feel like sports culture deprives lots of regular public high school students of an education, and I don't think it's elitist at all to dislike professional sports for their contribution to this mess.
While I respect your position I feel that you really don't understand the perspective of sports from the athletes side.
You're completely glossing over the positives that sports bring to the lives of people involved in them, especially those who take it serious. I've been writing code since I was 13-14 years old, but I've been testing myself physically and mentally since I was 8, thanks to a life long 'career' of playing baseball. Nothing in my life has taught me more about who I am and what I'm capable of, both mentally and physically, than my time spent in team sports. And that's saying nothing of the social growth and life long friendships and connections made.
I'm just a middle class white kid who had far better options in life than to pursue professional sports...but for those less fortunate, the education they get from their sports teams/coaches/careers my very well be the best 'real life' education they'll ever get.
Calling sports destructive to society seems so completely asinine to me that it's comedic. Then again, my perspective is quite different than yours.
While I respect your position I feel that you really don't understand the perspective of sports from the athletes side.
You're completely glossing over the positives that sports bring to the lives of people involved in them, especially those who take it serious. I've been writing code since I was 13-14 years old, but I've been testing myself physically and mentally since I was 8, thanks to a life long 'career' of playing baseball. Nothing in my life has taught me more about who I am and what I'm capable of, both mentally and physically, than my time spent in team sports. And that's saying nothing of the social growth and life long friendships and connections made.
I'm just a middle class white kid who had far better options in life than to pursue professional sports...but for those less fortunate, the education they get from their sports teams/coaches/careers my very well be the best 'real life' education they'll ever get.
Calling sports destructive to society seems so completely asinine to me that it's comedic. Then again, my perspective is quite different than yours.
> You're completely glossing over the positives
...
> Calling sports destructive to society seems so completely asinine
That's not his point though. His point is that for every bit of handwringing of how ghastly some people's comments on sports are, there's the reality that the football coach is the highest (in the millions of dollars range) paid position at almost every university in the US, how the sporting department despite those figures manages to be a net budgetry drain on almost every school which has one, and the reality that college-level sports is hugely abusive and exploitative to the players which actually play it.
>how the sporting department despite those figures manages to be a net budgetry drain on almost every school which has one
And so are music departments.
Which I think is part of the point here. I firmly believe that playing right tackle can teach you just as much as playing the oboe, yet intellectuals tend to look down on former and praise the latter. Organized sports are not only a hobby and social gathering, but they can also serve as part of a greater learning and education experience. There is a reason why a few of the Ivy League schools rank near the top of all universities when it comes to the number of varsity athletes.
>that college-level sports is hugely abusive and exploitative to the players which actually play it.
You need to be specific here. Big revenue college sports (basically only Div I basketball and Div I-A football) are definitely exploitative, but most college athletes participate in sports that generate little revenue and it would be hard to argue they are being exploited.
And so are music departments.
Which I think is part of the point here. I firmly believe that playing right tackle can teach you just as much as playing the oboe, yet intellectuals tend to look down on former and praise the latter. Organized sports are not only a hobby and social gathering, but they can also serve as part of a greater learning and education experience. There is a reason why a few of the Ivy League schools rank near the top of all universities when it comes to the number of varsity athletes.
>that college-level sports is hugely abusive and exploitative to the players which actually play it.
You need to be specific here. Big revenue college sports (basically only Div I basketball and Div I-A football) are definitely exploitative, but most college athletes participate in sports that generate little revenue and it would be hard to argue they are being exploited.
Music departments are budget drains since when? The arts and humanities are actually rather cheap, they need nothing more than buildings, staff and a library. Science and engineering are the real whoppers, and as a rule cross-subsidized by A&H. Tuition per credit hour is the same, after all. The dean of the School of Arts & Sciences at a certain state school is on record saying that for the price of a chemistry professor she can pay a whole department of English.
That isn't the point. The point is that the mission of universities is academic pursuits, not athletics. If anyone wants to practice sports, power to him, but let him join the sports club, or let him start an inofficial intramurine league.
The wider point is that in America you can't earn much social capital by being knowledgeable about any academic subject, you have to be wealthy instead. That's a problem, and probably also explains many things about American society. Universities finally getting rid of organized sports might perhaps be able to change that.
That isn't the point. The point is that the mission of universities is academic pursuits, not athletics. If anyone wants to practice sports, power to him, but let him join the sports club, or let him start an inofficial intramurine league.
The wider point is that in America you can't earn much social capital by being knowledgeable about any academic subject, you have to be wealthy instead. That's a problem, and probably also explains many things about American society. Universities finally getting rid of organized sports might perhaps be able to change that.
Music departments tend to be expensive in terms of faculty, sine most of their time is spent in private lessons. If an oboe studio has 10 students, that's essentially 10 hours a week in lessons alone. In that same 10 hours, an English professor might teach 60 students (if you figure 15 students/class with 2 hours MWF and a different 30 students Tue./Thu.). Those are numbers for a small school; at larger universities an English professor might lecture to 300 students a week in 10 hours, but that oboe professor is still seeing just 10 students.
Huh? Are you talking about college? I thought the OP was talking about high school. We never had any private lessons. "Band" class was... 35+ kids in one room at a time, all playing at the same time. Band was almost always the largest single class I had, relative only to gym class. Sometimes gym was larger (40-50 at a time), but I think I had a year with more people in band class than in my pahys-ed class.
Like you say, a distinction has to be made between big and small schools. I did my undergrad at a college where the starting quarterback was a physics major. There were no athletic scholarships.
Where I went to grad school, that would have been unthinkable. There was a special major that most of the football and mens basketball players chose, one of the departments of "studies."
There's no university where the oboist in the orchestra has to be given a fake education. Indeed, most music majors these days wisely pick up a second major.
Where I went to grad school, that would have been unthinkable. There was a special major that most of the football and mens basketball players chose, one of the departments of "studies."
There's no university where the oboist in the orchestra has to be given a fake education. Indeed, most music majors these days wisely pick up a second major.
> >how the sporting department despite those figures manages to be a net budgetry drain on almost every school which has one
> And so are music departments.
If the band directors made millions of dollars, you would have a good point.
If the band directors made millions of dollars, you would have a good point.
If band directors brought in millions in revenue and PR value to a school, then YOU would have a point. Nobody would have ever heard of Gonzaga university if it weren't for basketball. At the schools with million dollar coaches, they bring in millions in revenue in both tickets, licensing as well as intangible PR value. I am not defending or disparaging college sports, I am making the point that a school's band program isn't generally adding revenue. It rarely attracts big donors. While Div I sports might have an operating loss (maybe,) the net income to a school, through donations, PR value, etc far exceeds the cost. How many kids want to go to Florida State that don't live in Florida? By attracting more national applicants, a school can charge out of state tuition that directly benefits their bottom line. There are many benefits to a school that aren't measured with the myopic view of "athletic income - athletic cost = profit of the program."
If the donations go to the athletic programs, then it doesn't matter. There are also numerous hidden costs associated with athletic programs, like law enforcement and extra tutoring for athletes. On top of that, most schools require ALL students (even those who don't attend sports games) to pay a fee, which acts as an additional subsidy. Even further, many public universities use part of the money they receive from their respective states to fund athletic programs.
The band students pay tuition to be there. If the football players paid tuition to be on the team and the sports teams were subsidized at the same rate as the band program, I wouldn't care.
There are a handful (maybe 20?) of schools that probably make an overall profit from their sports teams, but the rest of the thousands of colleges and universities in the US operate their sports programs at a loss. Those are really the schools I'm talking about.
The band students pay tuition to be there. If the football players paid tuition to be on the team and the sports teams were subsidized at the same rate as the band program, I wouldn't care.
There are a handful (maybe 20?) of schools that probably make an overall profit from their sports teams, but the rest of the thousands of colleges and universities in the US operate their sports programs at a loss. Those are really the schools I'm talking about.
> there's the reality that the football coach is the highest (in the millions of dollars range) paid position at almost every university in the US
Not only that, coaches are the highest paid public employees in most states [0].
[0] http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-...
Not only that, coaches are the highest paid public employees in most states [0].
[0] http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-...
I can't speak for every school, but I will share my own insight on a big football university
I attended a state school where the "highest paid public employee" was a football coach. I was lucky enough to marry a then student president of the professional students (Med, Vet, Opt, Dentist, Pharmacy, Law) and as part of her duties she sat on the athletic counsel. Our tuition did not go to the coaches at all, the athletic dept was entirely self funded and donated the excess to the school itself. They helped fund a library renovation while we were there, among other student oriented needs.
Also, because of the success of the football team they are able to fund (again without student money) all the other sports "no one cares about" eg men's badminton or women's olympic weight lifting or something... The majority of THOSE student-athletes truly are students then athletes.
Take away the good football and the other things become harder or impossible to achieve. I'm not saying sports should be considered a loss over academics, but some people enjoy both and are not going to the NFL
I attended a state school where the "highest paid public employee" was a football coach. I was lucky enough to marry a then student president of the professional students (Med, Vet, Opt, Dentist, Pharmacy, Law) and as part of her duties she sat on the athletic counsel. Our tuition did not go to the coaches at all, the athletic dept was entirely self funded and donated the excess to the school itself. They helped fund a library renovation while we were there, among other student oriented needs.
Also, because of the success of the football team they are able to fund (again without student money) all the other sports "no one cares about" eg men's badminton or women's olympic weight lifting or something... The majority of THOSE student-athletes truly are students then athletes.
Take away the good football and the other things become harder or impossible to achieve. I'm not saying sports should be considered a loss over academics, but some people enjoy both and are not going to the NFL
In contrast, at my university the football team had two 1-11 seasons in a row, and the head coach was finally fired after losing the first four games of the next season. It took so long because the school was wary of the $1.4 million cost of letting him go early. (He wound up getting paid for the entire third season, and $150,000 each for the next two years.)
Somehow I doubt UNM’s football team is able to cover the cost of the athletics department. The coach in question was Mike Locksley.
Somehow I doubt UNM’s football team is able to cover the cost of the athletics department. The coach in question was Mike Locksley.
Sports is a huge financial drain on the school? Do you have any data? What I heard was that college football tends to pay for all of the other sports at a school. If anything sports creates a lot of opportunities for students that otherwise could be done due to budgets.
> What I heard was that college football tends to pay for all of the other sports at a school.
Yeah, at the most successful football schools. That's a minority among schools that have football programs. [1] [2]
>If anything sports creates a lot of opportunities for students that otherwise could be done due to budgets.
No, sports diverts scholarship funds from scholars to athletes, and the athletes rarely take full advantage of the academics in college, going for easy classes and easy majors. It actually destroys a lot of opportunities, particularly at schools that are losing money on their sports programs.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/05/does-foot...
[2] http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Ar...
Yeah, at the most successful football schools. That's a minority among schools that have football programs. [1] [2]
>If anything sports creates a lot of opportunities for students that otherwise could be done due to budgets.
No, sports diverts scholarship funds from scholars to athletes, and the athletes rarely take full advantage of the academics in college, going for easy classes and easy majors. It actually destroys a lot of opportunities, particularly at schools that are losing money on their sports programs.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/05/does-foot...
[2] http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Ar...
>Yeah, at the most successful football schools.
And it's the successful (at pulliung NCAA TV money) football schools that have coaches with million dollar contracts.
It's a nice bait and switch you constructed. A "trick play" if you will.
And it's the successful (at pulliung NCAA TV money) football schools that have coaches with million dollar contracts.
It's a nice bait and switch you constructed. A "trick play" if you will.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xeKPpMFq...
Feel free to search that image from other sources too.
And the data backing it.
And yes, this is not the same as it being paid for by academics...but then you have to deal with the fact that most top-tier sports departments also fail to break even, and it's extremely murky if they contribute anything back to academics at all - whereas it's pretty visible that they are allocated money out of the academic takings. [http://www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-fo...]
EDIT: All of which again, would probably be worth turning a blind eye to if it were a good thing for the players...except it isn't. Because they don't get paid.
Feel free to search that image from other sources too.
And the data backing it.
And yes, this is not the same as it being paid for by academics...but then you have to deal with the fact that most top-tier sports departments also fail to break even, and it's extremely murky if they contribute anything back to academics at all - whereas it's pretty visible that they are allocated money out of the academic takings. [http://www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-fo...]
EDIT: All of which again, would probably be worth turning a blind eye to if it were a good thing for the players...except it isn't. Because they don't get paid.
I didn't say anything about coaches with million dollar contracts. I was responding only to the claim that football pays for the rest of the sports, which, other than men's basketball, are pretty much universally unprofitable.
If only a few schools' football programs fund the other sports, and all schools have a lot of sports, it only follows that most schools are losing money on sports, no matter how much money they pay their coaches.
That said, many unsuccessful football programs still have coaches with multimillion dollar contracts, so you're still wrong.
>It's a nice bait and switch you constructed. A "trick play" if you will.
This added nothing to the discussion and wasn't even a fair accusation, since I wasn't arguing anything like what you suggested I was. If I were being uncharitable, I would accuse you of intentionally misunderstanding my argument for the chance to be snide.
If only a few schools' football programs fund the other sports, and all schools have a lot of sports, it only follows that most schools are losing money on sports, no matter how much money they pay their coaches.
That said, many unsuccessful football programs still have coaches with multimillion dollar contracts, so you're still wrong.
>It's a nice bait and switch you constructed. A "trick play" if you will.
This added nothing to the discussion and wasn't even a fair accusation, since I wasn't arguing anything like what you suggested I was. If I were being uncharitable, I would accuse you of intentionally misunderstanding my argument for the chance to be snide.
Where do those scholarship dollars come from? It must be all te donations the sociology department attracts.
Scholarship money comes from a lot of places, but usually from wealthy alumni.
It definitely doesn't come from sports at most American universities.
There's something for the argument that sports attracts students who will become wealthy alumni and donate after graduation, but AFAIK, there's no data proving it, and some that contradicts that notion.
It definitely doesn't come from sports at most American universities.
There's something for the argument that sports attracts students who will become wealthy alumni and donate after graduation, but AFAIK, there's no data proving it, and some that contradicts that notion.
I loved playing basketball, too. But then in high school I could choose between taking advanced math classes or basketball PE, which was required to play on the basketball team. That kind of choice shouldn't be the kind of choice a high school student should have to make.
There were many more example of trade offs like this, almost all of which undermined any ostensible focus on education.
These kinds of things have nothing to do with whether playing sports (on a team or not) can be a positive experience or is good for people.
There were many more example of trade offs like this, almost all of which undermined any ostensible focus on education.
These kinds of things have nothing to do with whether playing sports (on a team or not) can be a positive experience or is good for people.
I love sports, but every time I watch or support them I feel like I'm destroying civil society and undermining democracy and helping to destroy the last vestiges of effective public education.
I'm not a big sports fan, but pro sports does serve a purpose.
Sports in general is ritualized hunting / warfare. A civilized and less brutal version of war, but the roots are clear. The skills used are the same as our ancestors used to survive: running, throwing, tackling, hitting things with sticks. That's war.
Watching sports is a celebration of those ancient survival skills, though they don't have much place in modern society. These urges exist within many of us, and need an outlet. Sports is highly preferable to the small-scale skirmishes that frequently occurred in centuries past.
Many people feel the strong call of tribalism too. Us versus them. Rooting for the home team, and feeling their ups and downs as your own is also wired into us at a deep level.
It would be a lot more effective for society if we were pitting city governments against each other, seeing who can deliver the best services at the lowest taxpayer cost. But I'm not holding my breath for someone to set that league. :-)
I'm not a big sports fan, but pro sports does serve a purpose.
Sports in general is ritualized hunting / warfare. A civilized and less brutal version of war, but the roots are clear. The skills used are the same as our ancestors used to survive: running, throwing, tackling, hitting things with sticks. That's war.
Watching sports is a celebration of those ancient survival skills, though they don't have much place in modern society. These urges exist within many of us, and need an outlet. Sports is highly preferable to the small-scale skirmishes that frequently occurred in centuries past.
Many people feel the strong call of tribalism too. Us versus them. Rooting for the home team, and feeling their ups and downs as your own is also wired into us at a deep level.
It would be a lot more effective for society if we were pitting city governments against each other, seeing who can deliver the best services at the lowest taxpayer cost. But I'm not holding my breath for someone to set that league. :-)
> Sports in general is ritualized hunting / warfare.
Ritualized, sure. Hunting / warfare? Depends on the sport.
Dancesport is a thing, and its assuredly not ritualized hunting / warfare.
> Sports is highly preferable to the small-scale skirmishes that frequently occurred in centuries past.
Sports is -- and has been for quite some time -- a frequent focus of the small-scale skirmishes much the same as those you paint it as an alternative to. I'm not sure its much of an outlet.
> It would be a lot more effective for society if we were pitting city governments against each other, seeing who can deliver the best services at the lowest taxpayer cost. But I'm not holding my breath for someone to set that league.
Actually, before those "small-scale skirmishes" were so frequently outbursts about sport, they were often outbursts between the backers of different political factions, ideologies, or groups striving to shape society (we still sometimes have those, too; sport may have kept the violence while removing the social purpose to a certain extent, but not entirely.)
Ritualized, sure. Hunting / warfare? Depends on the sport.
Dancesport is a thing, and its assuredly not ritualized hunting / warfare.
> Sports is highly preferable to the small-scale skirmishes that frequently occurred in centuries past.
Sports is -- and has been for quite some time -- a frequent focus of the small-scale skirmishes much the same as those you paint it as an alternative to. I'm not sure its much of an outlet.
> It would be a lot more effective for society if we were pitting city governments against each other, seeing who can deliver the best services at the lowest taxpayer cost. But I'm not holding my breath for someone to set that league.
Actually, before those "small-scale skirmishes" were so frequently outbursts about sport, they were often outbursts between the backers of different political factions, ideologies, or groups striving to shape society (we still sometimes have those, too; sport may have kept the violence while removing the social purpose to a certain extent, but not entirely.)
Dancesport is a thing, and its assuredly not ritualized hunting / warfare.
The main topic of conversation is the widely popular professional sports such as Football, American Football, etc. These sports have attackers, defenders, and so on.
Sports is -- and has been for quite some time -- a frequent focus of the small-scale skirmishes much the same as those you paint it as an alternative to.
I don't see that as the proximate cause of most conflicts throughout history. Mostly, it seems to be about resources, and sometimes ideology too.
The main topic of conversation is the widely popular professional sports such as Football, American Football, etc. These sports have attackers, defenders, and so on.
Sports is -- and has been for quite some time -- a frequent focus of the small-scale skirmishes much the same as those you paint it as an alternative to.
I don't see that as the proximate cause of most conflicts throughout history. Mostly, it seems to be about resources, and sometimes ideology too.
> I don't see that as the proximate cause of most conflicts throughout history.
No one said it was the proximate cause of most conflicts throughout history. Nor have conflicts in general stopped since sports became popular, nor were conflicts in general part of the discussion.
What was asserted upthread was that sports was an outlet that prevented "small-scale skirmishes". I simply pointed out that, in fact, professional sports are -- and this is true globally -- well-known as focuses of small-scale skirmishes and social violence, rather than an outlet which prevents them.
No one said it was the proximate cause of most conflicts throughout history. Nor have conflicts in general stopped since sports became popular, nor were conflicts in general part of the discussion.
What was asserted upthread was that sports was an outlet that prevented "small-scale skirmishes". I simply pointed out that, in fact, professional sports are -- and this is true globally -- well-known as focuses of small-scale skirmishes and social violence, rather than an outlet which prevents them.
Ah, are you talking about modern-day football hooligans?
When I say "small-scale skirmishes", I'm talking about relatively small border conflicts and the like that last less than a year and kill tens to hundreds of people. As opposed to regional or national conflicts where the casualties get into the thousands or much higher.
When I say "small-scale skirmishes", I'm talking about relatively small border conflicts and the like that last less than a year and kill tens to hundreds of people. As opposed to regional or national conflicts where the casualties get into the thousands or much higher.
Are you talking about football in the American sense or to describe soccer?
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the UK football hooligans are a dying breed. There have been a few Hollywood films made about UK football hooligans, but it's more about the situation at it was in the 70's/80's.
I'm not an expert on it, but it strikes me it was born out of boredom. You'd travel to an away match, see some goalless draw, and had wasted your weekend. The scrap may have started as some sort of consolation prize. Anyway, now the games are televised, prices are more expensive and the audience has become broader so the environment that bred it has gone. Some firms still have a reputation, but it's increasingly irrelevant.
I wonder what fuels the hooliganism where you are.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the UK football hooligans are a dying breed. There have been a few Hollywood films made about UK football hooligans, but it's more about the situation at it was in the 70's/80's.
I'm not an expert on it, but it strikes me it was born out of boredom. You'd travel to an away match, see some goalless draw, and had wasted your weekend. The scrap may have started as some sort of consolation prize. Anyway, now the games are televised, prices are more expensive and the audience has become broader so the environment that bred it has gone. Some firms still have a reputation, but it's increasingly irrelevant.
I wonder what fuels the hooliganism where you are.
Are you talking about football in the American sense or to describe soccer?
No, I was asking if dragonwriter was referring to football (soccer) hooligans from the UK or other countries. Argentina guys in particular seem to get pretty rowdy, and there have been murders too.
But there isn't any sort of hooliganism where I am, I was just trying to figure out what dragonwriter was talking about with regards to pro sports being the focus of conflict. Which I don't see being anywhere close to the level of conflict (like actual war) that I was talking about.
No, I was asking if dragonwriter was referring to football (soccer) hooligans from the UK or other countries. Argentina guys in particular seem to get pretty rowdy, and there have been murders too.
But there isn't any sort of hooliganism where I am, I was just trying to figure out what dragonwriter was talking about with regards to pro sports being the focus of conflict. Which I don't see being anywhere close to the level of conflict (like actual war) that I was talking about.
Okay then, in that case I'd say sports aren't the focus for conflict, they're a convenient excuse for it. Fighting is always its own domain, other surrounding factors are just window dressing.
That's my opinion anyhow.
That's my opinion anyhow.
> When I say "small-scale skirmishes", I'm talking about relatively small border conflicts and the like that last less than a year and kill tens to hundreds of people.
Football skirmishes that kill people on that order aren't unheard of, and I know of no evidence even suggesting that the popularity of professional sports even correlates with (much less causes) a reduction the kind of small-scale skirmishes you discuss (even before considering whether the degree of such effect is offset by violence directly associated with sport.)
Football skirmishes that kill people on that order aren't unheard of, and I know of no evidence even suggesting that the popularity of professional sports even correlates with (much less causes) a reduction the kind of small-scale skirmishes you discuss (even before considering whether the degree of such effect is offset by violence directly associated with sport.)
What's dancesport? I've never heard of it.
Swimming is ritualized warfare? That argument sounds like something one might come up with if they had a freshman philosophy paper due the next day. We could say that grocery shopping is ritualized hunting or that a piñata is an encouragement of ritualized torture. There comes a point when the intellectual threads holding together an argument approach absurdity.
I didn't invent the idea of sports as ritualized warfare:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/a/OlympicGames.h...
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/a/OlympicGames.h...
We could say that grocery shopping is ritualized hunting ...
It is 'gathering' the other main component of 'hunting and gathering'.
... or that a piñata is an encouragement of ritualized torture.
It may amuse you to know that I did actually look into that. However, the piñata's origins seem relatively innocuous.
It is 'gathering' the other main component of 'hunting and gathering'.
... or that a piñata is an encouragement of ritualized torture.
It may amuse you to know that I did actually look into that. However, the piñata's origins seem relatively innocuous.
High school athletics is a problem in some ways, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Robert Putnam is a political scientist of some renown. One of his major contributions was a study he did in Italy over 40 years. His question was why was government in in the north generally more efficient and just all around better than politics in the southern portion of the country.
His conclusion was that northern Italians were much more heavily involved in civic clubs like religious groups, labor unions, and ... soccer clubs, which created social capital, and horizontal networks, unlike the hierarchical networks in the south which created clientelism and gangs.
Sports fanhood and clubs may actually make democracy better. They certainly foster community. There are bigger problems in this country.
Robert Putnam is a political scientist of some renown. One of his major contributions was a study he did in Italy over 40 years. His question was why was government in in the north generally more efficient and just all around better than politics in the southern portion of the country.
His conclusion was that northern Italians were much more heavily involved in civic clubs like religious groups, labor unions, and ... soccer clubs, which created social capital, and horizontal networks, unlike the hierarchical networks in the south which created clientelism and gangs.
Sports fanhood and clubs may actually make democracy better. They certainly foster community. There are bigger problems in this country.
Well there's putnam for ya, letting the obvious visual difference between southern and northern italians sail right over his head.
I must admit your point is going over my head, too. Do you mind explaining?
He's probably making some crack about perceived race
>I love sports, but every time I watch or support them I feel like I'm destroying civil society and undermining democracy and helping to destroy the last vestiges of effective public education.
Hyperbole. In a lot of ways, sports can bring a city or group together in ways that other events can't.
I feel like this is where I have to make the usual acknowledgement that yes of course the NFL is run by a bunch of morons and yes of course head injuries when you're a young kid are a bad thing.
Hyperbole. In a lot of ways, sports can bring a city or group together in ways that other events can't.
I feel like this is where I have to make the usual acknowledgement that yes of course the NFL is run by a bunch of morons and yes of course head injuries when you're a young kid are a bad thing.
It's the coming together / tribalism part that unnerves me. There's no rational reason for people to get so excited about it, so it rubs me the wrong way the same way most political rallies do. Small scale sports don't have quite the same effect on me, but large heavily marketed ones do as there is a pressure to conform (i.e. care, participate, hold certain opinions that positively reflect on the enterprise).
>It's the coming together / tribalism part that unnerves me.
Why? Is community bad? I need that argument to be unpacked a bit more, because for me my experience living in several different cities as their teams make a playoff run has been a fun, electrifying experience. Neighbors are hanging out. Kids are having sleep overs watching games. There's a (usually very) healthy bump to the local economy. For all the room-for-improvement there truly is with managing the sport, the sense of community is what's actually valuable to me.
Why? Is community bad? I need that argument to be unpacked a bit more, because for me my experience living in several different cities as their teams make a playoff run has been a fun, electrifying experience. Neighbors are hanging out. Kids are having sleep overs watching games. There's a (usually very) healthy bump to the local economy. For all the room-for-improvement there truly is with managing the sport, the sense of community is what's actually valuable to me.
I think those effects are good, but I also recognize that because these effects are unmoored from anything real we're dealing with nearly pure social signaling amongst a mass responding to tribal tendencies.
Of course, having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable - nearly any time new people meet powerful things happen.
However, I take issue with your point about the economy: A local bump means that there was a withdrawal from somewhere else in the economy. If it came mostly from savings rather than from shifting consumption from other locales, then it generated increased consumption, which depending on the macroeconomic condition, could be good or bad (though during the latest recession, inducing an overall increase in consumption sounds like the right thing to do). It's not clear whether this is a good thing or not. Why should I prefer the shop owners in your town versus some other town to temporarily enjoy increased profits? There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.
Of course, having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable - nearly any time new people meet powerful things happen.
However, I take issue with your point about the economy: A local bump means that there was a withdrawal from somewhere else in the economy. If it came mostly from savings rather than from shifting consumption from other locales, then it generated increased consumption, which depending on the macroeconomic condition, could be good or bad (though during the latest recession, inducing an overall increase in consumption sounds like the right thing to do). It's not clear whether this is a good thing or not. Why should I prefer the shop owners in your town versus some other town to temporarily enjoy increased profits? There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.
Your argument is cogent and expresses my own thoughts well.
>> having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable
This is true up to the point that team allegiance is weaker tribalism than faith. Growing up in Manchester and not swearing fealty to red/blue, admittedly less so than orange/green in Belfast, was still more troublesome than it needed to be.
Yet all this seems a matter of identity development. My younger brother felt the opposite pressure of having to grow up in a family uninterested in sports. Each of us were yin surrounded by yang (or vice versa). I feel the article's writer may have given up something more valuable when he arbitrarily adopted another identity for the sake of broader communication. Unless he had a latent need to belong to a group more deeply and is merely rationalising it in the article.
>> There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.
That's the nub of it. Tribalism in any form wants adherents to reinforce that there are no disinterested parties. You are either with us or against us. Depending on your starting assumptions, that's either valid or completely spurious.
>> having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable
This is true up to the point that team allegiance is weaker tribalism than faith. Growing up in Manchester and not swearing fealty to red/blue, admittedly less so than orange/green in Belfast, was still more troublesome than it needed to be.
Yet all this seems a matter of identity development. My younger brother felt the opposite pressure of having to grow up in a family uninterested in sports. Each of us were yin surrounded by yang (or vice versa). I feel the article's writer may have given up something more valuable when he arbitrarily adopted another identity for the sake of broader communication. Unless he had a latent need to belong to a group more deeply and is merely rationalising it in the article.
>> There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.
That's the nub of it. Tribalism in any form wants adherents to reinforce that there are no disinterested parties. You are either with us or against us. Depending on your starting assumptions, that's either valid or completely spurious.
I think that's a very sad and depressive way to look at sports fans, and indeed I think the argument that they're part of some fascist tribal conspiracy is silly and immature. I guess my experience growing up as a baseball fan was less "tribal" than football fans in Europe, but I don't think that's reason to decide that the whole experience is without value...which I think is what's being implied here and elsewhere on this thread: that if you haven't experienced this terrible tribal nature of sports fanatics then you've been duped and don't know it yet.
On the whole, I think everyone is reading into this wayyyy to deeply. If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.
On the whole, I think everyone is reading into this wayyyy to deeply. If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.
I deliberately delimited my position to mitigate counter-arguments like this. We do agree that, to the extent following sports is low or completely non-tribal it is innocuous. Presumably, baseball was/is like this for you. I also allowed that for some people such as my brother and, perhaps for the article's writer too, belonging is a deep need which can be satisfied by some form of tribalism.
My next point might be a bit of a stretch, but I would invite you to consider the possibility that your comment is itself a weak exemplar of the tendencies I disliked growing up in Manchester.
"othering" the others :
>> I think that's a very sad and depressive
Appealing to the in-group for emotional support :
>> If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.
deliberately misrepresenting outsiders and making a loud noise doing it :
>> the argument that they're part of some fascist tribal conspiracy is silly and immature
My next point might be a bit of a stretch, but I would invite you to consider the possibility that your comment is itself a weak exemplar of the tendencies I disliked growing up in Manchester.
"othering" the others :
>> I think that's a very sad and depressive
Appealing to the in-group for emotional support :
>> If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.
deliberately misrepresenting outsiders and making a loud noise doing it :
>> the argument that they're part of some fascist tribal conspiracy is silly and immature
re: "less tribal"
Baseball is... much slower than european football. I grew up as an american baseball fan, but could never understand the fascination with american football. Ever. It's just a weird game, but it tends to be faster than baseball, and certainly more physically intense (tackles, etc). And soccer, basketball and hockey are even faster. The speed tends to hype people up, I think.
It feels easier to watch a baseball game from the stands without getting "worked up". I can easily watch a bb game and be relaxed. I never felt able to relax at a basketball game (by comparison). I imagine it's easier to relax at a cricket match vs a soccer/football match too.
Baseball is... much slower than european football. I grew up as an american baseball fan, but could never understand the fascination with american football. Ever. It's just a weird game, but it tends to be faster than baseball, and certainly more physically intense (tackles, etc). And soccer, basketball and hockey are even faster. The speed tends to hype people up, I think.
It feels easier to watch a baseball game from the stands without getting "worked up". I can easily watch a bb game and be relaxed. I never felt able to relax at a basketball game (by comparison). I imagine it's easier to relax at a cricket match vs a soccer/football match too.
I guess I grew up always thinking about the math aspects of the game (dad was a bond trader), so even hockey for me, which is probably the least deterministic of the professional sports, is fun to watch. American Football has always been my least favorite...but probably because that sport's been immune to the kind of deep-level analysis (at least until recently) that a sport like baseball (and even basketball) are subjected to. So, I guess I agree with your perspective insomuch as it involves how "deep" someone can get emotionally involved with a game. Soccer though to me is just mind-numbingly boring - so the "tribal" nature and violence associated with European soccer fans is a complete mystery to me.
I also have the same reaction, but not so much for the irrationality of being excited. Generally it feels good to win, and it feels good to watch someone you like win, regardless of why you like them. What I really really dislike about the affair is group signaling. (Which is a signal of my belonging to the small group of people who detest group-signaling, but nevertheless...) Enjoy watching the game all you want, even as a crowd, but the moment the "we" comes out I have that reaction. I see so many society-wide problems stemming from mere classification of people into groups, and the so-natural next step of individuals of those groups making the group part of their identity. One of the creepiest social experiments I know about is the Robber's Cave experiment: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/
Is there a 'rational reason' for anything animals do by instinct? Perhaps you are entirely rational, but most homo sapiens are not so different from our primate ancestors who lived in tribal groups.
I have the same almost instinctive reaction. I think we're probably guilty of it as well, just not as aware of the shape it takes (just look at the emacs vs vi folks, perl vs php, .net vs j2ee).
"tribalism part that unnerves me... it rubs me the wrong way the same way most political rallies do"
Jr, ear muffs! "U! C! L! A! Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Yeah...I'm not quite getting how this invokes visions of Nuremberg, may I politely suggest a bit of therapy perhaps?
Jr, ear muffs! "U! C! L! A! Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Yeah...I'm not quite getting how this invokes visions of Nuremberg, may I politely suggest a bit of therapy perhaps?
You said Nuremberg, not me. ;) That's an extreme case.
It's more that when I see that effect, I have an uneasy feeling that a trigger could set things off the rails or shut off critical thinking or modify social standards for certain acts. I'm a bit of a contrarian at heart, so it's something of a non-specific mental immune response.
In fact, at (EU) football events, soccer hooligans are widely known for being violent. In the US, commercial and government propaganda are often dispensed in a socially validated environment. An alarming trigger (or a home-run that lands in the stands) can cause a stampede at stadia. I recognize that the more extreme examples are relatively rare occurrences, but they are more common than on say the street per square foot.
The irrationality of the crowd is something that unnerves me. I've been to games, so it's not like it's some paralyzing anxiety, but I feel some creepy crawlies at times.
Let me give you an example of a cohesive social situation that wouldn't creep me out: A town coming together for disaster recovery, where the people signaling cohesiveness are actually directly affected or are participating in the recovery effort. On the contrary, when people that are totally unaffected come together, it feels more uneasy to me because they are responding to a story being told on the news and are in a condition where simple manipulation is possible as they are not responding to advance their own interests (so certain sanity checks are disabled) and they do not have a good way to verify the story they heard.
It's more that when I see that effect, I have an uneasy feeling that a trigger could set things off the rails or shut off critical thinking or modify social standards for certain acts. I'm a bit of a contrarian at heart, so it's something of a non-specific mental immune response.
In fact, at (EU) football events, soccer hooligans are widely known for being violent. In the US, commercial and government propaganda are often dispensed in a socially validated environment. An alarming trigger (or a home-run that lands in the stands) can cause a stampede at stadia. I recognize that the more extreme examples are relatively rare occurrences, but they are more common than on say the street per square foot.
The irrationality of the crowd is something that unnerves me. I've been to games, so it's not like it's some paralyzing anxiety, but I feel some creepy crawlies at times.
Let me give you an example of a cohesive social situation that wouldn't creep me out: A town coming together for disaster recovery, where the people signaling cohesiveness are actually directly affected or are participating in the recovery effort. On the contrary, when people that are totally unaffected come together, it feels more uneasy to me because they are responding to a story being told on the news and are in a condition where simple manipulation is possible as they are not responding to advance their own interests (so certain sanity checks are disabled) and they do not have a good way to verify the story they heard.
That's an interesting perspective, in a similar wheelhouse to my own, but I don't blame professional sports for the many ills caused by school sports. You picked on high schools, but the problem is far worse in colleges. I much prefer the european model, which focuses on clubs rather than schools.
The clubs model brings a different set of problems, especially in populations already divided by religion or class. See the sectarianism and tribalism that have developed around the Old Firm derby in Glasgow, for example.
[deleted]
If sports weren't the basis for cliques, it would be something else. Eliminating sports would not make high school any better, people would just organize into different exclusionary groups.
[deleted](2)
A lot of academia is bullshit, and it isn't always driven by snobbery, just naïveté. But in the light of massive and increasing financial inequality, nerds and academics are NOT the problem. The corporate CEO or jock lawyer who is sucking up all the money is very likely to be a sports fan like everyone else.
I'd argue that the big money in education is contributing to financial inequality as much as any CEO or attorney.
Tuition in America is crazy, which is bad for social mobility, I agree, but professors and scientists are less than 2% of the top One Percent. They are completely swamped in numerical terms by the non-geeky categories of executives, medical, finance and law:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/28/who-actua...
>The disdain for working class culture among academics was part of the reason I choose not to pursue a formal higher education.
I don't have statistics, so this is all anecdotal, but most Professors I have gotten to know well have a favorite team or sport etc. The reality you present sounds more like movies than real life. For example, I can see Dr. Epps from Numb3rs being snoody about sports in a way I have never seen a real Professor be.
Is it possible that it was the popular culture image portrayed of academic attitudes is what stopped you, rather than actual academic attitudes?
> but I am also an academic and an intellectual. Many highly educated people have told me so, I just don't have the paper to prove it.
Do you have problems getting published without "the paper to prove it"? Anyone can be an intellectual if they are intellectual, but at least in my mind, being an academic implies peer-reviewed novel research.
I don't have statistics, so this is all anecdotal, but most Professors I have gotten to know well have a favorite team or sport etc. The reality you present sounds more like movies than real life. For example, I can see Dr. Epps from Numb3rs being snoody about sports in a way I have never seen a real Professor be.
Is it possible that it was the popular culture image portrayed of academic attitudes is what stopped you, rather than actual academic attitudes?
> but I am also an academic and an intellectual. Many highly educated people have told me so, I just don't have the paper to prove it.
Do you have problems getting published without "the paper to prove it"? Anyone can be an intellectual if they are intellectual, but at least in my mind, being an academic implies peer-reviewed novel research.
> Anyone can be an intellectual if they are intellectual, but at least in my mind, being an academic implies peer-reviewed novel research.
I thought this as well. I had always thought that being an intellectual was just something you were regardless of education, but an academic is a vocation marked largely by publishing peer-reviewed research and (most likely) having advanced graduated degrees and/or a professorship of some sort.
I thought this as well. I had always thought that being an intellectual was just something you were regardless of education, but an academic is a vocation marked largely by publishing peer-reviewed research and (most likely) having advanced graduated degrees and/or a professorship of some sort.
> ut most Professors I have gotten to know well have a favorite team or sport etc.
One of my favorite CS profs loved his Duke Blue Devils, and was an avid Bulls fan (really who wasn't).
I think that the disdain people have from sports may stem from a general disdain that arises from being an outcast.
One of my favorite CS profs loved his Duke Blue Devils, and was an avid Bulls fan (really who wasn't).
I think that the disdain people have from sports may stem from a general disdain that arises from being an outcast.
> I don't have statistics, so this is all anecdotal, but most Professors I have gotten to know well have a favorite team or sport etc.
This has been my experience, up to and including a stint at a top tier American university where during the World Series I couldn't have a conversation with anyone, including my elderly Swiss-American academic supervisor, that didn't have a long preamble about how things were going for each team.
I grew up in an (American) football-loving family and still enjoy the game, but knew (and still know) almost nothing about baseball. But I watched that Series just so I could communicate with my American colleagues.
So to describe academics as sports-hating snobs is wildly at odds with (anecdotal) reality.
This has been my experience, up to and including a stint at a top tier American university where during the World Series I couldn't have a conversation with anyone, including my elderly Swiss-American academic supervisor, that didn't have a long preamble about how things were going for each team.
I grew up in an (American) football-loving family and still enjoy the game, but knew (and still know) almost nothing about baseball. But I watched that Series just so I could communicate with my American colleagues.
So to describe academics as sports-hating snobs is wildly at odds with (anecdotal) reality.
I think even among those who don't necessarily care for sports, calling them 'sports-hating snobs' is often at odds with reality.
I grew up in an academic family. My parents were at the top of their respective fields, and their work, to them was as much a labor of love as it was anything else. I found that really very few things competed in their eyes with the fun/enjoyment of doing their job. Sports didn't really make that cut, but pretty much nothing but family made that cut. Their friends (and colleagues) seemed to be similar.
It was not so much about "Eew sports" as it was "Do I want to watch sports? Or would I rather read a book?" and "Read a book" won 99.99% of the time.
That being said, I did see a lot of disdain for sports among some of the more intellectual students at my university.
I'd be willing to bet that who acts like a sports-hating-snob can be predicted by simple signalling theory: professors/academics are unlikely to have their 'intellectual credentials/worthiness' questioned. They usually wouldn't need to signal "Disdain for sports" as a way to differentiate themselves from the non-intellectual working class. Being interested in sports also probably doesn't have any potential impact on other's perception of them, but probably doesn't benefit them particularly either--so you'd see academics with an interest in sports and academics who just don't really care, but you probably wouldn't see lots of academics decrying sports. (Outside of the critiques you'd expect of the NFL/NBA/FIFA/etc.--probably focused on the organizational ethics rather than the idea of sports as inherently bad.) On the other hand, in the case of students or middle class, non-professorial individuals, the differentiation between them and the working class is less immediately obvious to them and their peers, particularly on the things that someone aspiring to appear 'intellectual' would care about. (I think this also includes people in tech.) For them, decrying sports signals that they are decidedly not working class/non-intellectual, and alleviates the risk of being identified as such.
I grew up in an academic family. My parents were at the top of their respective fields, and their work, to them was as much a labor of love as it was anything else. I found that really very few things competed in their eyes with the fun/enjoyment of doing their job. Sports didn't really make that cut, but pretty much nothing but family made that cut. Their friends (and colleagues) seemed to be similar.
It was not so much about "Eew sports" as it was "Do I want to watch sports? Or would I rather read a book?" and "Read a book" won 99.99% of the time.
That being said, I did see a lot of disdain for sports among some of the more intellectual students at my university.
I'd be willing to bet that who acts like a sports-hating-snob can be predicted by simple signalling theory: professors/academics are unlikely to have their 'intellectual credentials/worthiness' questioned. They usually wouldn't need to signal "Disdain for sports" as a way to differentiate themselves from the non-intellectual working class. Being interested in sports also probably doesn't have any potential impact on other's perception of them, but probably doesn't benefit them particularly either--so you'd see academics with an interest in sports and academics who just don't really care, but you probably wouldn't see lots of academics decrying sports. (Outside of the critiques you'd expect of the NFL/NBA/FIFA/etc.--probably focused on the organizational ethics rather than the idea of sports as inherently bad.) On the other hand, in the case of students or middle class, non-professorial individuals, the differentiation between them and the working class is less immediately obvious to them and their peers, particularly on the things that someone aspiring to appear 'intellectual' would care about. (I think this also includes people in tech.) For them, decrying sports signals that they are decidedly not working class/non-intellectual, and alleviates the risk of being identified as such.
Your signalling theory misses out the extent to which it seems to be okay to signal disdain for 'intellectual' interests like art and culture.
Bottom line for me is that no one has ever had to worry about getting beaten up by a stadium full of Mozart fans, or humiliated in high school by a feral gang of science nerds.
Bottom line for me is that no one has ever had to worry about getting beaten up by a stadium full of Mozart fans, or humiliated in high school by a feral gang of science nerds.
That would explain a lot of the hatred on reddit, for instance.
I think hatred on reddit is a complicated mess of legitimately bizarre people being given a forum for the first time, trolls, signalling, and groupthink, depending heavily on the topic and subreddit.
Signalling of social and political grouping is particularly prevalent and obvious on the internet because you can't rely on extrinsic or physical factors to demonstrate your social groupings. In the real world someone can rely on their appearance to telegraph a lot of things--clothing and grooming choices alone can hint at sexuality, politics, social class, and a variety of other things, to say nothing of existing social structures and bonds (who you surround yourself with also telegraphs a lot). On the internet, you either need to explicitly say these things ("I'm not straight", or "I came from a well off family" or "I'm a conservative") or signal them somehow, and there are areas where it's less acceptable to overtly announce your membership in a group, so implying it through general biwords for it is socially necessary. ("I'm filthy rich" or "I'm really, really smart and intellectual" or even "I'm really, really, really ridiculously good looking" all likely fall under that category. I think that generally the more desirable the category, the more it requires either actually costly signals--e.x. displaying expensive artwork in your home or donating lots of money in the case of wealth--to do 'acceptably'.)
You see some of it on HN, too, although I think it's generally much less accepted to negatively signal here--but especially in the more social-justice-y threads, you see a lot of signalling of people picking sides going in both directions, because that's something that HN doesn't really have any sort of unity on but individuals here feel strongly about. In this thread there was a perhaps unsurprising backlash against the author (usually backed up with some logic--which is thankfully required by the etiquette here) about why the posters were justified in their active dislike of sports.
In my experience most social signaling/biwording is fairly well summed up by the basic theory of "You will only expend effort signaling if there's (a) a chance you'll be mistaken for someone in a group you don't want to be mistaken as, and (b) there's a chance you'll be seen as being in the group you want to be in because of it."
Signalling of social and political grouping is particularly prevalent and obvious on the internet because you can't rely on extrinsic or physical factors to demonstrate your social groupings. In the real world someone can rely on their appearance to telegraph a lot of things--clothing and grooming choices alone can hint at sexuality, politics, social class, and a variety of other things, to say nothing of existing social structures and bonds (who you surround yourself with also telegraphs a lot). On the internet, you either need to explicitly say these things ("I'm not straight", or "I came from a well off family" or "I'm a conservative") or signal them somehow, and there are areas where it's less acceptable to overtly announce your membership in a group, so implying it through general biwords for it is socially necessary. ("I'm filthy rich" or "I'm really, really smart and intellectual" or even "I'm really, really, really ridiculously good looking" all likely fall under that category. I think that generally the more desirable the category, the more it requires either actually costly signals--e.x. displaying expensive artwork in your home or donating lots of money in the case of wealth--to do 'acceptably'.)
You see some of it on HN, too, although I think it's generally much less accepted to negatively signal here--but especially in the more social-justice-y threads, you see a lot of signalling of people picking sides going in both directions, because that's something that HN doesn't really have any sort of unity on but individuals here feel strongly about. In this thread there was a perhaps unsurprising backlash against the author (usually backed up with some logic--which is thankfully required by the etiquette here) about why the posters were justified in their active dislike of sports.
In my experience most social signaling/biwording is fairly well summed up by the basic theory of "You will only expend effort signaling if there's (a) a chance you'll be mistaken for someone in a group you don't want to be mistaken as, and (b) there's a chance you'll be seen as being in the group you want to be in because of it."
To be fair, disinterest and contempt are very different things.
Saying "I'm not interested in X" has very different connotations from "I can't see why anybody is interested in X".
Saying "I'm not interested in X" has very different connotations from "I can't see why anybody is interested in X".
Even the latter isn't contempt. I feel like I don't understand why anyone is interested in watching sports (as opposed to playing), but I certainly don't look down on them for it. At the very least, I know enough people that I respect that are into pro sports that it would be inconsistent to think something like "people who are into pro sports have nothing better to occupy their time and their minds".
Interpreted charitably, the latter is not contempt. But I can see someone saying that, but implying there is something wrong with such people.
It is contempt. It implies that there is no valid reason for liking X. You may not look down on them but when someone says "I don't see how anybody...", that is contempt. Not understanding is vastly different from expressing disbelief that anyone would do a particular thing.
> It implies that there is no valid reason for liking X.
This is completely wrong. You're essentially saying here that "I don't understand the valid reason for X" necessarily means "therefore X has no valid reason". I really hope you're just confused here, as opposed to actually believing this line of thought and applying it to things in general. To use my example again, when I say "I don't understand the appeal at all", I'm literally saying that _I_ don't understand it: I assume there's just something I'm missing about pro sports or some as-yet-unknown difference in my preferences that makes me averse to watching it.
This is completely wrong. You're essentially saying here that "I don't understand the valid reason for X" necessarily means "therefore X has no valid reason". I really hope you're just confused here, as opposed to actually believing this line of thought and applying it to things in general. To use my example again, when I say "I don't understand the appeal at all", I'm literally saying that _I_ don't understand it: I assume there's just something I'm missing about pro sports or some as-yet-unknown difference in my preferences that makes me averse to watching it.
This bites me occasionally,
You're essentially saying here that "I don't understand the valid reason for X" necessarily means "therefore X has no valid reason".
The thing that bites me is that I can say something like this and mean it as you do, and yet the person hearing it insists on interpreting incorrectly. I find this is especially true in conversations with a lot of emotional components.
Any time the listener of an assertion on my part that I'm trying to understand fact X, treats it as my asserting that fact X is false, it raises a flag for me to check the emotional content.
In my experience, to understand the appeal of sports (professional or otherwise) you have to understand people who want other people they care about to succeed. Being a parent helped me understand that. Prior to being a parent I was notoriously confused about what the connection was between sports team's success or failure and the outpouring of raw emotion on a large scale.
You're essentially saying here that "I don't understand the valid reason for X" necessarily means "therefore X has no valid reason".
The thing that bites me is that I can say something like this and mean it as you do, and yet the person hearing it insists on interpreting incorrectly. I find this is especially true in conversations with a lot of emotional components.
Any time the listener of an assertion on my part that I'm trying to understand fact X, treats it as my asserting that fact X is false, it raises a flag for me to check the emotional content.
In my experience, to understand the appeal of sports (professional or otherwise) you have to understand people who want other people they care about to succeed. Being a parent helped me understand that. Prior to being a parent I was notoriously confused about what the connection was between sports team's success or failure and the outpouring of raw emotion on a large scale.
There's no misunderstanding on my part about what the relationship is between fans and their teams. Rather, I don't understand what motivates that relationship. (by contrast, it's obviously much clearer why you'd have that relationship to your kids).
My best understanding of it is nothing more than the same blind tribalism that is responsible for so much of what is terrible with the world. As I said though, I prefer to think there's an alternative, more valid explanation that I'm just unaware of.
My best understanding of it is nothing more than the same blind tribalism that is responsible for so much of what is terrible with the world. As I said though, I prefer to think there's an alternative, more valid explanation that I'm just unaware of.
"I don't understand the valid reason for X" is vastly different in connotation from the original statement I commented on, "I don't see how anybody can like X". It is not completely wrong. Words have meaning outside the strict definitions. Have you tried to see how anybody can like X? Have you done the work to understand why other people do like X? The latter comment is full of assumptions regarding viewpoints and their validity.
You've changed the original wording that I was commenting on to mean something different. Telling me I'm completely wrong and that you hope I'm confused does nothing to change that.
You've changed the original wording that I was commenting on to mean something different. Telling me I'm completely wrong and that you hope I'm confused does nothing to change that.
You're right I did switch the wording there, but in my view it was only to clarify. I didn't consider the fact that you would see a difference in meaning between the two phrasings.
I literally see no difference (beyond the latter being slightly clearer) between "I can't see why X happens" and "I don't understand the valid reason why X happens" (where X in this case is "people being interested in pro sports"). As such, I didn't consider switching it out to change the meaning at all beyond slightly clarifying.
The connotations you refer to are also ones that I don't think the original phrase is laden with. I really don't see how "I don't see why X" connotes a lack of attempt to do so, any more than "I don't understand why X" does.
I'm aware that now we're getting into differences in connotations where there really are "no right answers" (unlike the denotation, we can't just look up a single source of truth). Apparently we've just been exposed to rather different vernacular, at least with respect to these couple of phrases. I guess that makes us "both right", with respect to the "languages" that we each speak.
I literally see no difference (beyond the latter being slightly clearer) between "I can't see why X happens" and "I don't understand the valid reason why X happens" (where X in this case is "people being interested in pro sports"). As such, I didn't consider switching it out to change the meaning at all beyond slightly clarifying.
The connotations you refer to are also ones that I don't think the original phrase is laden with. I really don't see how "I don't see why X" connotes a lack of attempt to do so, any more than "I don't understand why X" does.
I'm aware that now we're getting into differences in connotations where there really are "no right answers" (unlike the denotation, we can't just look up a single source of truth). Apparently we've just been exposed to rather different vernacular, at least with respect to these couple of phrases. I guess that makes us "both right", with respect to the "languages" that we each speak.
> "It implies that there is no valid reason for liking X."
Taken more charitably, it merely implies that one does not understand the valid reasons for liking X.
There's a difference between saying "there's nothing of value here" and "I don't see why this is of value" -- one is phrased as an objective statement, while the other is a statement of perspective.
Long ago, my wife told me she didn't understand why people liked a particular music genre I listened to. I had her listen to a couple of favorite songs and talked about what I thought was interesting about them, and as a result she developed a mild fondness for the genre which grew over the next several years. She wasn't expressing contempt; she was expressing a lack of understanding which was overcome as a result of experience and education.
Taken more charitably, it merely implies that one does not understand the valid reasons for liking X.
There's a difference between saying "there's nothing of value here" and "I don't see why this is of value" -- one is phrased as an objective statement, while the other is a statement of perspective.
Long ago, my wife told me she didn't understand why people liked a particular music genre I listened to. I had her listen to a couple of favorite songs and talked about what I thought was interesting about them, and as a result she developed a mild fondness for the genre which grew over the next several years. She wasn't expressing contempt; she was expressing a lack of understanding which was overcome as a result of experience and education.
"Taken more charitably, it merely implies that one does not understand the valid reasons for liking X."
And therein lies the rub. Interpreting others statements charitably and trying to make your own clear and unambiguous can reduce an awful lot of social friction.
And therein lies the rub. Interpreting others statements charitably and trying to make your own clear and unambiguous can reduce an awful lot of social friction.
This is a really good point. I try to interpret every statement charitably (until the point where it strains credulity). As such I don't tend to think about those who prefer seeing attacks in every comment and thus don't usually think about the "be careful about avoiding ambiguity" part of your comment.
That does work up to a point, although that can be taken too far as well. When people interpret any expression of disinterest as "you must not understand it well enough or you'd like it", that's painfully wrong in the other direction, too.
This article isn't talking about disinterest. It's talking about the contempt self proclaimed intellectuals have - not the "oh I don't really follow NFL" attitude, the "oh, you like sports? Here let me post the tim and eric sports video to show how disdainful I am of sports."
You know the type, they think they're so clever calling sports terms by the wrong name. Really sticking it to society by saying things like, "yay!! our squad scored some touchgoals in the handball match ha-ha-ha!!" People who are too good for non-intellectual things like sports, because in their mind, being intellectual is what sets them apart from the rest of the pack and the rest of the pack are stupid neanderthals who watch sports.
I've had a couple girlfriends who made fun of me enjoying hockey and college football, but after explaining the depth of the strategy, and how the football game is much less about the guys running into each other, and much more about the chess game the coaches are playing against each other, they've all come around and at least appreciated what sports are about.
You know the type, they think they're so clever calling sports terms by the wrong name. Really sticking it to society by saying things like, "yay!! our squad scored some touchgoals in the handball match ha-ha-ha!!" People who are too good for non-intellectual things like sports, because in their mind, being intellectual is what sets them apart from the rest of the pack and the rest of the pack are stupid neanderthals who watch sports.
I've had a couple girlfriends who made fun of me enjoying hockey and college football, but after explaining the depth of the strategy, and how the football game is much less about the guys running into each other, and much more about the chess game the coaches are playing against each other, they've all come around and at least appreciated what sports are about.
> I've had a couple girlfriends who made fun of me enjoying hockey and college football, but after explaining the depth of the strategy, and how the football game is much less about the guys running into each other, and much more about the chess game the coaches are playing against each other
That part interests you more, maybe. One of the reasons sports have such wide appeal is that they can be appreciated in a number of different ways. Coaching and long term strategy is interesting for sure, but there's a lot to see just between players too.
Watching a professional basketball game, for example, I'm astounded by the pure, freak strength and athleticism of these six-and-a-half-foot-tall giants as they dunk, struggle for position for rebounds and leap across the court to block shots. I'm in awe of the mental discipline and social coordination the players need to successfully execute a defensive scheme or offensive play: split-second reads of their opponents' schemes, precise spatial awareness of their teammates and opposing players, and the ability to communicate effectively with teammates amid the roar of an NBA arena at full capacity.
Football isn't the same as basketball but the players are doing a lot more than just "running into each other." As one example, wide receivers are often engaged in tactical mind-games with defensive backs, fighting for the millisecond-grained advantage off the line of scrimmage that makes the difference between a touchdown and an intercepted pass. They have to execute cuts down the field on their routes with incredibly precise timing matching the quarterback's or risk causing an incompletion or worse. All players spend hundreds of hours a season in the film room studying their opponents, looking for tendencies and tells to exploit in the coming game.
That part interests you more, maybe. One of the reasons sports have such wide appeal is that they can be appreciated in a number of different ways. Coaching and long term strategy is interesting for sure, but there's a lot to see just between players too.
Watching a professional basketball game, for example, I'm astounded by the pure, freak strength and athleticism of these six-and-a-half-foot-tall giants as they dunk, struggle for position for rebounds and leap across the court to block shots. I'm in awe of the mental discipline and social coordination the players need to successfully execute a defensive scheme or offensive play: split-second reads of their opponents' schemes, precise spatial awareness of their teammates and opposing players, and the ability to communicate effectively with teammates amid the roar of an NBA arena at full capacity.
Football isn't the same as basketball but the players are doing a lot more than just "running into each other." As one example, wide receivers are often engaged in tactical mind-games with defensive backs, fighting for the millisecond-grained advantage off the line of scrimmage that makes the difference between a touchdown and an intercepted pass. They have to execute cuts down the field on their routes with incredibly precise timing matching the quarterback's or risk causing an incompletion or worse. All players spend hundreds of hours a season in the film room studying their opponents, looking for tendencies and tells to exploit in the coming game.
Have you considered the possibility that this overt faux-ignorance might be in response to a situation where:
a) everyone expects you to know the difference between a safety touch and a free safety
and
b) no one knows the difference between muonium and muonic hydrogen (a difference I myself just learned today)
and
c) if you do know the difference between muonium and muonic hydrogen you instantly get treated with contempt?
I'm not sure that this is the case, but having lived my whole life in a world that treats almost everything I care about with overt and sometimes violent contempt, I can certainly see people who care more about art, science, literature or poetry acting out a bit to give the rest of the world the feeling they have when they try to talk to anyone about anything that matters to them.
a) everyone expects you to know the difference between a safety touch and a free safety
and
b) no one knows the difference between muonium and muonic hydrogen (a difference I myself just learned today)
and
c) if you do know the difference between muonium and muonic hydrogen you instantly get treated with contempt?
I'm not sure that this is the case, but having lived my whole life in a world that treats almost everything I care about with overt and sometimes violent contempt, I can certainly see people who care more about art, science, literature or poetry acting out a bit to give the rest of the world the feeling they have when they try to talk to anyone about anything that matters to them.
You are projecting. Someone doesn't share your interests, or finds sports boring. It really, really doesn't mean they think they're clever, or "too good". That implies that secretly, they like sports but just get off on pretending not to like them to be elitist. But it's simply untrue.
Sorry you have a grievance with your exes who were bored by your preoccupation with sports. Nobody is obligated to share your interests any more than you are obligated to share a certain autistic person's interest in trains. If you find talking about models of trains boring, that's your right. Period.
Sorry you have a grievance with your exes who were bored by your preoccupation with sports. Nobody is obligated to share your interests any more than you are obligated to share a certain autistic person's interest in trains. If you find talking about models of trains boring, that's your right. Period.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It's called being a snob
I kind of disagree with that label, as it imply that its only is a problem with higher education. The working class show the same overt contempt at people who watch e-sports, snooker, and other sports which isn't directly associated with the working class culture.
I kind of disagree with that label, as it imply that its only is a problem with higher education. The working class show the same overt contempt at people who watch e-sports, snooker, and other sports which isn't directly associated with the working class culture.
Snooker is very much a working class game. Just go to any snooker club around the UK.
Anyone can be a snob. Unfortunately it's not a problem confined to academia.
Like rinon said, snobbery isn't limited to academia nor educated people.
It's made worse in these contexts because these are the same people who are asked to comment - and sometimes even make policy - on the working class.
It's a little galling when the educated, wealthy, and powerful show contempt for core parts of the culture of groups they are supposed to represent the interests of.
It's also counter-productive, since these educated, wealthy, and powerful people must necessarily engage in dialogue with the working class if their research, policy, or commentary is intended to be accurate or useful.
It's made worse in these contexts because these are the same people who are asked to comment - and sometimes even make policy - on the working class.
It's a little galling when the educated, wealthy, and powerful show contempt for core parts of the culture of groups they are supposed to represent the interests of.
It's also counter-productive, since these educated, wealthy, and powerful people must necessarily engage in dialogue with the working class if their research, policy, or commentary is intended to be accurate or useful.
I think your mistaking apathy for disdain. Just because marinekingprime isn't revered like Lionel Messi doesn't mean there is a conspiracy against egaming. People just don't care, and there is nothign wrong with that.
I just finished my undergrad, and I've realized that the 'jocks hate nerds' has become severely outdated in my generation. Like the parent commentor, I grew up in both worlds; My athletic, frat-boy, 'jock' friends are often loud and obnoxious, but they don't hate quieter, 'nerd' folks. Rather, they just don't really care. On the other hand, I've found that a lot of my CS friends care a ridiculous amount, often feeling persecuted by mainstream social people for no reason. Ive had to hear a ridiculous amount of shit talk about fratboys and sorority girls (who in turn are mostly pretty cool).
Nowadays I've found that the real assholes in the "jocks hate nerds" equation have become the 'nerds'.
I just finished my undergrad, and I've realized that the 'jocks hate nerds' has become severely outdated in my generation. Like the parent commentor, I grew up in both worlds; My athletic, frat-boy, 'jock' friends are often loud and obnoxious, but they don't hate quieter, 'nerd' folks. Rather, they just don't really care. On the other hand, I've found that a lot of my CS friends care a ridiculous amount, often feeling persecuted by mainstream social people for no reason. Ive had to hear a ridiculous amount of shit talk about fratboys and sorority girls (who in turn are mostly pretty cool).
Nowadays I've found that the real assholes in the "jocks hate nerds" equation have become the 'nerds'.
>Nowadays I've found that the real assholes in the "jocks hate nerds" equation have become the 'nerds'.
I guess you either die young or live long enough to become the villan.
That said jocks have a lot more social respect despite nerds contributing much more to our society. That seems reasonable to be pissed of about, and being perceived as being treated unfairly by a group and therefore hating it is pretty much what we humans do.
I guess you either die young or live long enough to become the villan.
That said jocks have a lot more social respect despite nerds contributing much more to our society. That seems reasonable to be pissed of about, and being perceived as being treated unfairly by a group and therefore hating it is pretty much what we humans do.
Many people repeat things without knowing why. Next time you hear someone say they don't like sports ask why.
Personally, I really enjoy sports. What I don't like is the organizations (NFL, NCAA) and owners that sell advertising and broadcasting rights on top of them. There's far too much watching and not enough doing.
Personally, I really enjoy sports. What I don't like is the organizations (NFL, NCAA) and owners that sell advertising and broadcasting rights on top of them. There's far too much watching and not enough doing.
I don't know if this reflects one or more widespread trends, but as someone who plays amateur hockey I've found that a very large number fellow players are engineers, programmers, market researchers, or some other white collar professional occupation. At least at non-professional levels, the sport seems to be full of very intelligent people, but not necessarily "intellectuals" per se.
It could just be a self-selection effect due to playing a relatively expensive sport (since income and education are correlated), but given how popular sports of all types are (both watching and playing) among so many different types of people I am amazed that the denizens of ivory towers have been able to maintain the stereotype of sports as "low brow" for so long. Especially given that many ivy league universities have historically had popular and successful teams in sports like boxing and wrestling.
It's deeply, tragically ironic when you consider that the origins of those same intellecutal bubbles are rooted in Greek and Roman classical studies, both cultures that prized a well developed body and mind, and considered a man incomplete if he lacked either:
"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates
It could just be a self-selection effect due to playing a relatively expensive sport (since income and education are correlated), but given how popular sports of all types are (both watching and playing) among so many different types of people I am amazed that the denizens of ivory towers have been able to maintain the stereotype of sports as "low brow" for so long. Especially given that many ivy league universities have historically had popular and successful teams in sports like boxing and wrestling.
It's deeply, tragically ironic when you consider that the origins of those same intellecutal bubbles are rooted in Greek and Roman classical studies, both cultures that prized a well developed body and mind, and considered a man incomplete if he lacked either:
"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates
> but given how popular sports of all types are (both watching and playing) among so many different types of people I am amazed that the denizens of ivory towers have been able to maintain the stereotype of sports as "low brow" for so long.
I don't think that stereotype actually exists in "the denizens of ivory towers" so much as the stereotype of "denizens of ivory towers" holding that stereotype exists in the minds of people who identify themselves in opposition to "denizens of ivory towers".
Actually academics, whether fairly described as "denizens of ivory towers" or not, seem, IME, to be no less interest in sport qua sport than anyone else -- plenty of them fans of the popular professional sports, and plenty of those that aren't not disdaining them so much as being busier with other things, whether academic/professional pursuits, family, or even their own personal involvement in some form of sport, and not taking time for participation in the ritual of major professional sport spectation.
> It's deeply, tragically ironic when you consider that the origins of those same intellecutal bubbles are rooted in Greek and Roman classical studies, both cultures that prized a well developed body and mind, and considered a man incomplete if he lacked either
I don't think tribal attachment to and spectating major professional sports has any connection to a "well-developed body and mind".
I don't think that stereotype actually exists in "the denizens of ivory towers" so much as the stereotype of "denizens of ivory towers" holding that stereotype exists in the minds of people who identify themselves in opposition to "denizens of ivory towers".
Actually academics, whether fairly described as "denizens of ivory towers" or not, seem, IME, to be no less interest in sport qua sport than anyone else -- plenty of them fans of the popular professional sports, and plenty of those that aren't not disdaining them so much as being busier with other things, whether academic/professional pursuits, family, or even their own personal involvement in some form of sport, and not taking time for participation in the ritual of major professional sport spectation.
> It's deeply, tragically ironic when you consider that the origins of those same intellecutal bubbles are rooted in Greek and Roman classical studies, both cultures that prized a well developed body and mind, and considered a man incomplete if he lacked either
I don't think tribal attachment to and spectating major professional sports has any connection to a "well-developed body and mind".
I have always been a sports fan, but I really dislike the giant subsidies given to billionaires, to the point where it just feels like a giant con.
Not only is everything over priced, but there's a vast array of tax breaks and hidden subsidies that the working class pays for.
Not only is everything over priced, but there's a vast array of tax breaks and hidden subsidies that the working class pays for.
Do you feel the same way about the music and movie industries?
A. I don't think that whatever tax breaks those industries get, that they compare in scope to the obscenity that is the National Football League.
B. I tend not to go to "tent pole" movies (well, occasionally) nor really consume a lot of blockbuster type music. Those would likely be the largest consumers of subsidies, or at least I'd guess that.
C. Music and movies occasionally intersect with "art" which I mostly support some subsidy of.
You did ask a good, thought provoking question. But as I said, I do like sports, and do use some of my discretionary spending to attend games. I don't support the massive subsidies that professional sports in the US gets.
B. I tend not to go to "tent pole" movies (well, occasionally) nor really consume a lot of blockbuster type music. Those would likely be the largest consumers of subsidies, or at least I'd guess that.
C. Music and movies occasionally intersect with "art" which I mostly support some subsidy of.
You did ask a good, thought provoking question. But as I said, I do like sports, and do use some of my discretionary spending to attend games. I don't support the massive subsidies that professional sports in the US gets.
> he is saying in effect "What you love is obtuse and low brow"
More than that, he is in effect saying "there is no depth to this thing" (which he hasn't studied in depth enough to know). Which is both rude and arrogant.
It's one thing to say you don't understand a thing and aren't interested in it, and then politely discuss things you are (mutually) interested in. It's quite another to distill something you don't understand into an absurd caricature like "grown men with sticks chasing etc." when it actually has a tremendous amount of depth and strategy -- which every sport has at the highest levels (including things like Snooker and Starcraft.)
There's a reason the weakside linebacker positions himself in a different spot against the pistol formation when the backup tight end is in versus when the starter is in. There's a reason the shooting guard makes a hard baseline cut right after swinging the ball out to the wing if he's matched up with a smaller defender. If you show contempt for people who think that stuff is cool (or even for people who merely think the end result is fun to watch though they don't understand the details) that's a serious social dysfunction.
More than that, he is in effect saying "there is no depth to this thing" (which he hasn't studied in depth enough to know). Which is both rude and arrogant.
It's one thing to say you don't understand a thing and aren't interested in it, and then politely discuss things you are (mutually) interested in. It's quite another to distill something you don't understand into an absurd caricature like "grown men with sticks chasing etc." when it actually has a tremendous amount of depth and strategy -- which every sport has at the highest levels (including things like Snooker and Starcraft.)
There's a reason the weakside linebacker positions himself in a different spot against the pistol formation when the backup tight end is in versus when the starter is in. There's a reason the shooting guard makes a hard baseline cut right after swinging the ball out to the wing if he's matched up with a smaller defender. If you show contempt for people who think that stuff is cool (or even for people who merely think the end result is fun to watch though they don't understand the details) that's a serious social dysfunction.
> More than that, he is in effect saying "there is no depth to this thing"
More precisely, 'there is no depth that is emotionally or intellectually relevant to me.' I'm sure there is lots of depth to the architecture Robin Hood Gardens, but it still should be levelled.
Likewise, while you're quite right that there's lots of depth to professional sports, I don't think that means that anyone should care, or be expected to care.
Contempt is bad, and obviously it's a fact that sports are popular, that most people like sports and that those of us who don't care are, in some pertinent sense, socially ill-developed. Still, what about the contempt which sports-lovers have for sports-haters? I think that's far more harmful, both in childhood and adulthood.
More precisely, 'there is no depth that is emotionally or intellectually relevant to me.' I'm sure there is lots of depth to the architecture Robin Hood Gardens, but it still should be levelled.
Likewise, while you're quite right that there's lots of depth to professional sports, I don't think that means that anyone should care, or be expected to care.
Contempt is bad, and obviously it's a fact that sports are popular, that most people like sports and that those of us who don't care are, in some pertinent sense, socially ill-developed. Still, what about the contempt which sports-lovers have for sports-haters? I think that's far more harmful, both in childhood and adulthood.
> "More precisely, 'there is no depth that is emotionally or intellectually relevant to me.'"
That's less precise.
By caricaturing the sport, he's not merely expressing that he doesn't care about the depth, he's implying it doesn't exist and that other people who care about the sport care about something pointless. It's an expression of contempt not just for the sport, but for their judgment. Like "the depth this sport may have shouldn't be relevant to anyone".
It's like if someone caricatures computer programming as "just typing" and therefore unimportant -- they're not merely saying that they don't care about pointers and function calls, they're implying that there's something wrong with people who do care about those things.
> "what about the contempt which sports-lovers have for sports-haters?"
I'm glad you prefaced this with "contempt is bad" so it didn't appear to be a tu quoque fallacy.
And you are correct, that form of contempt is also harmful. And the form of contempt sometimes displayed by groups of sports fans for other groups of sports fans is harmful. I don't think there's a lot of need to analyze the proposition "children are sometimes immature" -- I know I dished out and took my fair share of insults about everything from intelligence to looks to athleticism to choice of entertainment.
But for adults, we should rise above. If a friend is genuinely passionate about something, whether it's programming or sports or stamps or butterflies, figure out a way to be supportive rather than dismissive -- listen a little bit, ask questions, and then move on. And when you move the conversation to areas of shared interest, do it in a way that respects your friend's interest in whatever it is you don't particularly care for.
That's less precise.
By caricaturing the sport, he's not merely expressing that he doesn't care about the depth, he's implying it doesn't exist and that other people who care about the sport care about something pointless. It's an expression of contempt not just for the sport, but for their judgment. Like "the depth this sport may have shouldn't be relevant to anyone".
It's like if someone caricatures computer programming as "just typing" and therefore unimportant -- they're not merely saying that they don't care about pointers and function calls, they're implying that there's something wrong with people who do care about those things.
> "what about the contempt which sports-lovers have for sports-haters?"
I'm glad you prefaced this with "contempt is bad" so it didn't appear to be a tu quoque fallacy.
And you are correct, that form of contempt is also harmful. And the form of contempt sometimes displayed by groups of sports fans for other groups of sports fans is harmful. I don't think there's a lot of need to analyze the proposition "children are sometimes immature" -- I know I dished out and took my fair share of insults about everything from intelligence to looks to athleticism to choice of entertainment.
But for adults, we should rise above. If a friend is genuinely passionate about something, whether it's programming or sports or stamps or butterflies, figure out a way to be supportive rather than dismissive -- listen a little bit, ask questions, and then move on. And when you move the conversation to areas of shared interest, do it in a way that respects your friend's interest in whatever it is you don't particularly care for.
Depth can have a real defined meaning, though. If you're in the context of discovering a process that will make electricity cheaper and cleaner, that is useful to everyone around the world in some way and then to have someone overshadow that achievement or ignore it entirely because 'the game' is on, is ridiculous. I live in the south east where when a college football coach has a problem with the university president, the president is lucky to last longer than a year.
There's obviously nothing objectively bad about enjoying sports, but the ravenous obsession with sports is not exactly uncommon and to pretend we should celebrate it is not in the best interest of humanity.
There is a reason a lot (most?) NFL players go bankrupt shortly after their career of being paid far more than will reflect their contribution to the future of mankind. It's because that grouping of people has a lot of backwards thinking and irresponsibility attached to it.
It's very interesting to me that someone, here, in academia, is having to defend their disdain to the vocal majority about their distaste for sports culture when it does nothing long term for our species good and could easily be argued to be detrimental via opportunity cost thrown away in human potential that grew up believing it was more prestigious to be a football player than a scientist.
So am I annoyed? A bit. Do I generalize based on your taste for sports? No. Do I think your choice to praise athletes over scientists is detrimental to society? Yes, I do.
There's obviously nothing objectively bad about enjoying sports, but the ravenous obsession with sports is not exactly uncommon and to pretend we should celebrate it is not in the best interest of humanity.
There is a reason a lot (most?) NFL players go bankrupt shortly after their career of being paid far more than will reflect their contribution to the future of mankind. It's because that grouping of people has a lot of backwards thinking and irresponsibility attached to it.
It's very interesting to me that someone, here, in academia, is having to defend their disdain to the vocal majority about their distaste for sports culture when it does nothing long term for our species good and could easily be argued to be detrimental via opportunity cost thrown away in human potential that grew up believing it was more prestigious to be a football player than a scientist.
So am I annoyed? A bit. Do I generalize based on your taste for sports? No. Do I think your choice to praise athletes over scientists is detrimental to society? Yes, I do.
> There is a reason a lot (most?) NFL players go bankrupt shortly after their career of being paid far more than will reflect their contribution to the future of mankind.
Is the reason because a very large number of them grew up in poverty or with rough family lives and therefore never had the chance to be trained into proper financial management as you were? Because that's a reason for a pretty solid proportion of athletes in the NFL at least.
Is the reason because a very large number of them grew up in poverty or with rough family lives and therefore never had the chance to be trained into proper financial management as you were? Because that's a reason for a pretty solid proportion of athletes in the NFL at least.
>NFL players go bankrupt shortly after their career of being paid far more than will reflect their contribution to the future of mankind.
Isn't that supposed to be because of the mental illness brought on by the repeated concussions that players suffer, which causes physical injury to the brain? I'm not sure how you can blame the players for that.
Isn't that supposed to be because of the mental illness brought on by the repeated concussions that players suffer, which causes physical injury to the brain? I'm not sure how you can blame the players for that.
I think a far more likely reason is that they grow up in poverty and have no good role models for how to manage their finances. They're very similar to lottery winners in that regard. As a result, they piss it away.
I'm not blaming the players for anything. It's the institution that society has propped up and praised that puts people in a position where they feel the best way to be validated by society is to put themselves in danger doing nothing of lasting good for mankind.
Sure, there's some of that. But it goes the other way, too, as exemplified by "The Big Bang Theory". Things "nerds" are interested in are regarded with contempt by non-intellectuals.
[deleted]
I think what you're interpreting as contempt for sports is more of a contempt for people not being able to take the hint that not everyone is interested in same things they are.
Cultivated: having or showing good education, taste, and manners[1]
Even the title is dripping with disdain and condescension. Seems like he has to spend a bit more time going native. [2]
It's best to avoid judging people's interests, and learning a bit about them can definitely help you interact with people. Faking interest, as many do due to social pressures, is ineffective in the long run as well.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cultivated [2] Can someone please tell me the politically correct version of this idiom?
Even the title is dripping with disdain and condescension. Seems like he has to spend a bit more time going native. [2]
It's best to avoid judging people's interests, and learning a bit about them can definitely help you interact with people. Faking interest, as many do due to social pressures, is ineffective in the long run as well.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cultivated [2] Can someone please tell me the politically correct version of this idiom?
"When you show overt contempt for sports you are showing contempt for most everybody and that is problem with your social skills."
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
How about this: "when you show overt contempt for fast food, you are showing contempt for most everybody, and that is a problem with your social skills."
If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
How about this: "when you show overt contempt for fast food, you are showing contempt for most everybody, and that is a problem with your social skills."
If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?
>That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
I guess you ask that rhetorically, but I think it is an interesting question. I'd say you have to listen through the music top charts. You also have to watch most popular movies every year. There are more TV-series than there is time to watch, so I'd guess I'll say you only have to watch one or two of your choice. Read synopses of the rest.
Furthermore you should have at least some passing familiarity with the most popular games, but there is no need to go all out. 10 hours each in final fantasy, mario, random flash games(10h total), mobile games(10h total), counterstrike, starcraft, league of legends, dota, wow,
I guess you ask that rhetorically, but I think it is an interesting question. I'd say you have to listen through the music top charts. You also have to watch most popular movies every year. There are more TV-series than there is time to watch, so I'd guess I'll say you only have to watch one or two of your choice. Read synopses of the rest.
Furthermore you should have at least some passing familiarity with the most popular games, but there is no need to go all out. 10 hours each in final fantasy, mario, random flash games(10h total), mobile games(10h total), counterstrike, starcraft, league of legends, dota, wow,
Eh. This is more like just saying that you need enough general knowledge to sustain a conversation if you want to get along with people, and that you don't repeat yourself too often.
The person who is into <extraordinarily specific topic, no matter how interesting> is always tiring to be around after a while (and can create a very one-sided social interaction).
The person who is into <extraordinarily specific topic, no matter how interesting> is always tiring to be around after a while (and can create a very one-sided social interaction).
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
Whats funny is that you could actually bring up this topic with fans of mainstream sports (especially for the NFL) and probably get a decent discussion going. Just mention things like TV timeouts and you'll probably get some level of agreement on how annoying things have gotten these days.
Of course, if you phrase it in a way similar to how you did above, people will most likely just think you were an asshole.
Whats funny is that you could actually bring up this topic with fans of mainstream sports (especially for the NFL) and probably get a decent discussion going. Just mention things like TV timeouts and you'll probably get some level of agreement on how annoying things have gotten these days.
Of course, if you phrase it in a way similar to how you did above, people will most likely just think you were an asshole.
"Of course, if you phrase it in a way similar to how you did above, people will most likely just think you were an asshole."
Of course, a similar thought most likely crossed my mind when I read the parent comment.
Of course, a similar thought most likely crossed my mind when I read the parent comment.
The difference being the parent made a valid point that you're not even willing to entertain - the notion that people can enjoy a sport, at the highest level, without enjoying the crass commercialization that might accompany it. But you couldn't respond without an indictment of how brainwashed he is, in your opinion.
I love basketball. I grew up playing and refereeing it. I lost interest for about a decade, because the culture got to be too much about the personality and antics, and not the game. I've only just gotten back into it in the last year because it seems to have shifted back. And there is a lot of fun to be had attending a game.
I love basketball. I grew up playing and refereeing it. I lost interest for about a decade, because the culture got to be too much about the personality and antics, and not the game. I've only just gotten back into it in the last year because it seems to have shifted back. And there is a lot of fun to be had attending a game.
"But you couldn't respond without an indictment of how brainwashed he is, in your opinion."
I encourage you to quote that part of my comment. For bonus points, quote the part where I said I can't understand why people enjoy sports.
I encourage you to quote that part of my comment. For bonus points, quote the part where I said I can't understand why people enjoy sports.
"That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?"
Go ahead, say, with a straight face, that such a remark was not effectively a paraphrasing of what I said and was a non-loaded question asked with sincerity. To claim that you were not implying some corporate brainwashing in what you said is, frankly, disingenuous.
Go ahead, say, with a straight face, that such a remark was not effectively a paraphrasing of what I said and was a non-loaded question asked with sincerity. To claim that you were not implying some corporate brainwashing in what you said is, frankly, disingenuous.
Your characterization of a product successfully marketed to people as "corporate brainwashing" whenever you don't like someone pointing out that a thing is perpetuated by corporate profit motives is also disingenuous.
I think the commenter was being a bit of an ass too, but I think he still has a defensible point, and it's not the absurd point that you're making it out to be.
I think the commenter was being a bit of an ass too, but I think he still has a defensible point, and it's not the absurd point that you're making it out to be.
I'll agree. There's a healthy middle ground and I was exaggerating for emphasis.
Suffice to say, this: I think that it's possible to enjoy sport at a professional / high level (or local for that matter), in itself, whilst still having something of a disdain for overly crass commercialization (which varies between sports).
Suffice to say, this: I think that it's possible to enjoy sport at a professional / high level (or local for that matter), in itself, whilst still having something of a disdain for overly crass commercialization (which varies between sports).
The original comment seems to reinforce the article's point.
Exactly. Sports aren't a healthy part of society. They are games mean to occupy the less curious people of our culture so they don't get bored and dissatisfied with their existence. There is nothing healthy about sports culture. The socialization is entirely tribal and the impact on humanities future is non-existent.
Imagine if we game all our attention and praise to teachers and all of our money to successful charities. Imagine if it was a cutthroat competition to become the first team of intellectuals to solve today's difficult problems.
Just because a vocal majority aren't hurting anyone, doesn't mean I have some moral obligation to respect your choices that do nothing for anyone.
Imagine if we game all our attention and praise to teachers and all of our money to successful charities. Imagine if it was a cutthroat competition to become the first team of intellectuals to solve today's difficult problems.
Just because a vocal majority aren't hurting anyone, doesn't mean I have some moral obligation to respect your choices that do nothing for anyone.
Why are sports unhealthy? They are in fact extremely healthy, in the physical sense. Professional sports are simply an outgrowth of more "natural" sporting activities. Sports, even the professional variety, are not carefully engineered social prisons, but an evolution of natural human activities: physical activity and training combined with competition and the desire to observe others who are better than one's self.
We can imagine such an idealistic world, but this is completely unrealistic and crazy. People legitimately ENJOY watching and participating in sporting activities. You cannot (practically speaking) dictate what people should or should not enjoy. Suggesting better alternatives, fine, but insisting that others follow YOUR vision for a perfect world is self-centered and conceited.
I would argue that you do have a moral obligation to respect other humans which includes not purposefully hurting people's feelings for no reason. If you don't like sports, fine, but that's no reason to put down people who do.
We can imagine such an idealistic world, but this is completely unrealistic and crazy. People legitimately ENJOY watching and participating in sporting activities. You cannot (practically speaking) dictate what people should or should not enjoy. Suggesting better alternatives, fine, but insisting that others follow YOUR vision for a perfect world is self-centered and conceited.
I would argue that you do have a moral obligation to respect other humans which includes not purposefully hurting people's feelings for no reason. If you don't like sports, fine, but that's no reason to put down people who do.
Professional sports are anything but healthy, as soon as competition is even remotely recognized and praised illicit drugs come onto the scene.
As for a more idealistic world and my choice, I never even hinted at trying to legislate your ability to do what you want, but if you want me to clap and jump up and down and pick a favorite team because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.
I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team. Humans are tribal creatures. Being in a majority doesn't give you some right to an unopposed position. Just because most everyone around you will agree with you doesn't make what you're doing right.
If you would like to define some criteria and have a discussion about whether sports makes this world a better place I will gladly show you the fault in sports.
Also to the person commenting that you could say the same for any type of entertainment (regarding it being useless). That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love aquaponics, for one. Finding new interesting ways to feed people is entertainment for me. It's not uncommon for people to enjoy creating and learning. That type of entertainment becoming more prevalent could have a significant impact on our future as a species.
As for a more idealistic world and my choice, I never even hinted at trying to legislate your ability to do what you want, but if you want me to clap and jump up and down and pick a favorite team because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.
I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team. Humans are tribal creatures. Being in a majority doesn't give you some right to an unopposed position. Just because most everyone around you will agree with you doesn't make what you're doing right.
If you would like to define some criteria and have a discussion about whether sports makes this world a better place I will gladly show you the fault in sports.
Also to the person commenting that you could say the same for any type of entertainment (regarding it being useless). That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love aquaponics, for one. Finding new interesting ways to feed people is entertainment for me. It's not uncommon for people to enjoy creating and learning. That type of entertainment becoming more prevalent could have a significant impact on our future as a species.
I think you misunderstood rinon. He asked why are sports unhealthy, not why are professional sports unhealthy. Sports in general is healthy. You cannot discount the exercise.
Not only that, but sports can teach you a wide range of life skills. It is not simply a display of physical prowess. For example, tennis is not a competition on the basis of physical exertion alone, but of mental fortitude.
> I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team.
Um, you don't have to have a favorite team. You can still enjoy and talk about the game. For example, I don't have a favorite football team, but I will listen and talk all day about the strategy of the game and if, for example, a QB can execute that particular strategy or choke.
Not only that, but sports can teach you a wide range of life skills. It is not simply a display of physical prowess. For example, tennis is not a competition on the basis of physical exertion alone, but of mental fortitude.
> I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team.
Um, you don't have to have a favorite team. You can still enjoy and talk about the game. For example, I don't have a favorite football team, but I will listen and talk all day about the strategy of the game and if, for example, a QB can execute that particular strategy or choke.
> because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.
I think they can potentially do plenty for the future. For example, why does Nadal always put two bottles in the exact same position while playing a tennis match? Hey, maybe this will be useful for some research in psychology. Or maybe a survey of head injuries in football can lead to better health care. These sportsmen are usually at the edge of physical ability. Any attempt to push the envelope gives us the opportunity to learn more about ourselves.
I think they can potentially do plenty for the future. For example, why does Nadal always put two bottles in the exact same position while playing a tennis match? Hey, maybe this will be useful for some research in psychology. Or maybe a survey of head injuries in football can lead to better health care. These sportsmen are usually at the edge of physical ability. Any attempt to push the envelope gives us the opportunity to learn more about ourselves.
I think your argument would get more consideration if you didn't come off as condescending and holier-than-thou. You should read the article, it's talking about you.
You previously stated sports were unhealthy. Hence he asked why sports as a general activity were unhealthy. You are now only supporting that argument by changing what you said to be qualified as professional sports, without even acknowledging the change in argument. I know it is considered poor taste to call someone a troll here, but this tactic is used almost exclusively by trolls in my experience.
>a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future
Do you feel the same way about musicians, actors or other artists making money?
Do you feel the same way about musicians, actors or other artists making money?
You sound like the type of insufferable bore this article is expressly written for; it's a shame you seem not to have read it. No doubt you take great pleasure in some other form of entertainment that "does nothing for anyone".
Having a valid reason why some activity is intrinsically bad (e.g. fast food) is very different from disliking such activities because they are "beneath" you. Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad. (I'd even argue that fast food itself is not intrinsically bad, but that's a different discussion)
However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. There's a difference between saying something is bad, and saying that someone is bad because they participate in or enjoy it. Making people feel bad for eating McDonalds is unlikely to make or keep friends and is therefore by definition a problem with your social skills.
However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. There's a difference between saying something is bad, and saying that someone is bad because they participate in or enjoy it. Making people feel bad for eating McDonalds is unlikely to make or keep friends and is therefore by definition a problem with your social skills.
> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.
Professional sports are also incredibly problematic in multiple ways. One can argue against those issues--from the corrupting influence of money to the homophobia (now finally breaking down just a little bit) to the willingness to use up players to the normalization of violence (in hockey, in particular). In the same way, one can argue that fast food has virtues that make up for its supposed "intrinsic badness" (which I don't see at all: nothing is "intrinsically" good or bad... it depends on how it is used for what for.)
> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Having strong and forthrightly held tastes and opinions is a virtue and a delight.
When I see the vast amount of money and time that is dedicated to professional sports it makes me despair of humanity. Do I want to hang around people who spend a good part of their lives on such activities? I do not. This is not a problem with my social skills.
It would be a problem with my social skills if I did hang around with them and bitched about it. But saying, "I'm glad you're having fun, but I think it's completely crazy to spend so much time and money on the activity of being a fan" is not.
And just to be clear: no one has ever been shy about telling me how far beneath contempt I am for caring more about science, art and poetry than sports. So perhaps problems with social skills exist outside of stereotyped groups that it is currently fashionable to berate regarding them.
Professional sports are also incredibly problematic in multiple ways. One can argue against those issues--from the corrupting influence of money to the homophobia (now finally breaking down just a little bit) to the willingness to use up players to the normalization of violence (in hockey, in particular). In the same way, one can argue that fast food has virtues that make up for its supposed "intrinsic badness" (which I don't see at all: nothing is "intrinsically" good or bad... it depends on how it is used for what for.)
> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Having strong and forthrightly held tastes and opinions is a virtue and a delight.
When I see the vast amount of money and time that is dedicated to professional sports it makes me despair of humanity. Do I want to hang around people who spend a good part of their lives on such activities? I do not. This is not a problem with my social skills.
It would be a problem with my social skills if I did hang around with them and bitched about it. But saying, "I'm glad you're having fun, but I think it's completely crazy to spend so much time and money on the activity of being a fan" is not.
And just to be clear: no one has ever been shy about telling me how far beneath contempt I am for caring more about science, art and poetry than sports. So perhaps problems with social skills exist outside of stereotyped groups that it is currently fashionable to berate regarding them.
Is the damage American Football causes to its players a valid reason for disliking the activity?
They know the risks and accept them. If it were dogfighting there might be an argument. I don't like football simply because I find it a bit boring. However, perhaps ironically to some, I like baseball; it's like fishing, mildly hypnotic with occasional bursts of excitement.
> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.
"Sports" are not the issue. The currently-popular set of professional sports brands is the issue -- this discussion isn't about sport in the abstract, but the particular professional sports brands with which tribal identity is a major factor in contemporary American culture, and how people who aren't with the masses on this should shut up and join the masses, or else they are snobs. Or something.
"Sports" are not the issue. The currently-popular set of professional sports brands is the issue -- this discussion isn't about sport in the abstract, but the particular professional sports brands with which tribal identity is a major factor in contemporary American culture, and how people who aren't with the masses on this should shut up and join the masses, or else they are snobs. Or something.
The amount of commercials required to watch a game of football is intrinsically bad. The tax exempt status of the NFL is intrinsically bad.
Chinese stream. No commercials. It is, by far, the greatest thing that has happened to football.
Why do the Chinese streams exist? The Chinese streams exist because Chinese people are interested in watching the games. Why are they interested? Because they are betting money on the games. Why are they doing that? Because their local teams and sport are susceptible to corruption. The obvious result? Chinese organized crime are sending people to influence these teams as well, causing corruption.
So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.
So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/nflexempt.asp
Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."
Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."
The fact that NFL teams get taxpayers to foot the bill for new stadium construction and then the team retains the facility as private property, now that is what I have a problem with. Those facilities are bought with public money and should be public parks.
I generally agree with the principal you present but you have to acknowledge that the government (and therefore, theoretically, tax payers) gain value through the stadiums presence in the community. More directly through sales tax and tourism but possibly other less direct means like property values and property taxes.
Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.
Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.
We only establish or change what "people" want done with their tax money by public discourse on whether we think it's a good idea. That something is done by the government is hardly a reason to not question it.
The decision to construct a new stadium is often done through a referendum, so taxpayers do get a say.
Ahhhh, owned by snoped. I feel dumb.
But kyllo has another good taxy point.
But kyllo has another good taxy point.
But you being a snob about it to other people is also intrinsically bad. Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.
Intrinsically bad.
Intrinsically bad.
> Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".
Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".
[deleted]
[deleted]
> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.
Any action can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. That that is true of an action has no substantial meaning.
Any action can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. That that is true of an action has no substantial meaning.
[deleted]
If you don't enjoy an activity, it is intrinsically bad for you.
What? So if I don't enjoy exercising it's intrinsically bad for me?
Sports are not intrinsically bad? Let's pretend a world without sports for a second. What do you see? I see a world where scientists and philanthropists are common household names. Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen. I see a world where when someone makes a couple hundred million a year, they don't go immediately bankrupt after retiring because their industry wasn't intrinsically broken. That healthy panhandler who refuses to contribute to society gets no credit and recognition. Why should I recognize an athlete that take illicit drugs to perform well and teaches our youth that to be recognized you need to do something completely arbitrary and useless to society.
Maybe that's the case if you also got rid of the other professions that make up celebrities: musicians, actors/actresses, etc. I doubt removing just sports would suddenly make scientists/philanthropists household names. You'd essentially have to get rid of all forms of entertainment to do that, which seems a bit ridiculous. Besides, many athletes ARE philanthropists, who work hard to give back to their communities.
As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
> Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially
In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.
In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.
In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.
In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.
> In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.
That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.
That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.
> Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen
Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.
...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.
All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.
Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.
...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.
All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.
I'm pretty sure you're more than a bit deluded.
Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.
Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.
I'd say sports as an activity are good, but sports as a culture are often bad, it's just the most people don't draw a distinction.
Just look at tailgating -- at any university you can witness loads of adults setting a great example for their children by getting dead drunk en mass in front of them at every Saturday home game.
Just look at tailgating -- at any university you can witness loads of adults setting a great example for their children by getting dead drunk en mass in front of them at every Saturday home game.
I'm surprised at the vote swings on this one. Do people think there's nothing wrong with getting drunk in front of 5 to 11 year old children multiple weekends a year? Because I have witnessed this in my city each fall and find it troubling.
It's also a weird double standard when a lot of college campuses don't allow booze except for football tailgating.
It's also a weird double standard when a lot of college campuses don't allow booze except for football tailgating.
>What other corporate products must I consume
There is more to "sports" than watching them on TV. How about participating in them? It's good for your health, sort of like not eating McDonald's.
>If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?
There's a difference between "not eating" (or "not liking"), and "showing overt contempt" towards.
So, yes. If you don't understand that, your social skills are probably lacking.
There is more to "sports" than watching them on TV. How about participating in them? It's good for your health, sort of like not eating McDonald's.
>If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?
There's a difference between "not eating" (or "not liking"), and "showing overt contempt" towards.
So, yes. If you don't understand that, your social skills are probably lacking.
> There is more to "sports" than watching them on TV. How about participating in them?
The context here -- starting with the article, and followed in the thread prior to your response -- was participation in the culture of fandom of popular professional sports.
Obvious, individual direct participation in sports is a completely different thing (and often a thing that competes with participation in fandom culture.)
The context here -- starting with the article, and followed in the thread prior to your response -- was participation in the culture of fandom of popular professional sports.
Obvious, individual direct participation in sports is a completely different thing (and often a thing that competes with participation in fandom culture.)
No, there is a direct relation. At least outside the US, many many children are inspired to go out and try and imitate their favourite sporting heroes, and even if they aren't athletic they usually are included in the larger community and get to play and socialize. This is definitely the case with soccer and cricket.
I haven't seen a single case where being a fan has precluded children from going out and playing.
Perhaps as adults the situation might be different, but their are a whole host of other factors at play there, including health and time issues.
I haven't seen a single case where being a fan has precluded children from going out and playing.
Perhaps as adults the situation might be different, but their are a whole host of other factors at play there, including health and time issues.
I wasn't talking specifically about children, and there is a big difference between saying an activity competes with another activity and saying that it precludes the other activity.
I think this is getting cause and effect backwards. Many (not all) kids who became intellectuals were the last picked for the team in sports and generally suffered due to it. I went through school dreading gym class. Deciding that sports was not important to me and spending time on things I was better at was in part emotional self-defense.
Of course, dividing up into different tribes is not healthy. We should ideally try to leave such things behind and try to get along with everyone. But the nerds versus jocks thing lingers even in programming with the "brogrammer" meme and also in many programmers' expectation that everyone else should put in the hours to learn programming on their own because that's what they did.
Rather than indulging in moral shaming, I think better to say that the folks who are good at sports and at intellectual activities are in an excellent position to build bridges.
Of course, dividing up into different tribes is not healthy. We should ideally try to leave such things behind and try to get along with everyone. But the nerds versus jocks thing lingers even in programming with the "brogrammer" meme and also in many programmers' expectation that everyone else should put in the hours to learn programming on their own because that's what they did.
Rather than indulging in moral shaming, I think better to say that the folks who are good at sports and at intellectual activities are in an excellent position to build bridges.
In my school, bullies even at the time justified picking on nerds by saying we were elitist and snobby. It really annoys me when people make unfair attacks against nerds or intellectuals, because it doesn't just hurt adults, it hurts children.
And my experience was exactly the same as yours: people developed a kind of snobbery as an emotional self defense.
And my experience was exactly the same as yours: people developed a kind of snobbery as an emotional self defense.
This is a bit tangential to your post, but I think there's an important distinction that's being missed in most of the comments on this thread:
Not liking watching sports and not liking _sports_ (i.e. playing) are very different things with very different causes (though they are, to a degree, correlated).
The article is primarily talking about watching pro sports, so IMO what you're describing doesn't really give a complete picture of the topic at hand. As a single example, playing sports is one of my favorite things to do, despite finding watching pro sports to be extremely, extremely boring (regardless of the context: Soccer is my single favorite sport and even at a World Cup party I found myself bored out of my mind).
Not liking watching sports and not liking _sports_ (i.e. playing) are very different things with very different causes (though they are, to a degree, correlated).
The article is primarily talking about watching pro sports, so IMO what you're describing doesn't really give a complete picture of the topic at hand. As a single example, playing sports is one of my favorite things to do, despite finding watching pro sports to be extremely, extremely boring (regardless of the context: Soccer is my single favorite sport and even at a World Cup party I found myself bored out of my mind).
“[…] sports are something one does, not something one watches on TV.”
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/physical.html
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/physical.html
I suspect that most kids who become intellectuals have parents who are intellectuals.
Admittedly, my parents openly disdained pro and school sports, and rock music, when I was a kid. They are scientists, and into classical music. Today, I'm a scientist, I love classical and jazz, and am a performing jazz musician. Whatever "signaling" I might have received, I can't escape the fact that I love those art forms today.
But I wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell of getting onto the hockey or football team. Today, I'm probably in better physical health than most of my classmates who actually played on those teams.
Oddly enough, when my musical interests become a topic of conversation, nobody ever feels any qualms about stating how much they hate jazz and classical.
Admittedly, my parents openly disdained pro and school sports, and rock music, when I was a kid. They are scientists, and into classical music. Today, I'm a scientist, I love classical and jazz, and am a performing jazz musician. Whatever "signaling" I might have received, I can't escape the fact that I love those art forms today.
But I wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell of getting onto the hockey or football team. Today, I'm probably in better physical health than most of my classmates who actually played on those teams.
Oddly enough, when my musical interests become a topic of conversation, nobody ever feels any qualms about stating how much they hate jazz and classical.
I wouldn't say that's true. I had a father who pitched college baseball, and tried to instill the same values in me, and it only drove me further away from it. I'd rather we consider the alternate view, and rather than discussing how those who don't like spots are somehow infringing on those who are, select the MANY occasions (as in the parent post of school gym classes) where the opposite is certainly true; those who chose to abstain from sports are shamed and learn that laughing about their stance as a joke to both sides is a good way to disarm that.
The takeaway being, there are infinitely many different reasons to like or not like something. The fact that this comes up in particular for sports communicates to me that there's a different dynamic at play here. Do we often see this conflict for things like soy? Ballet? Curling? Sports in america seems to stand alone in that any deviance from the norm gets picked apart with a VERY fine toothed comb, perhaps as a factor of societal norms. I wonder if we'd see the same examination of soccer non-fans in the broader world or if this is a more american phenomena, I honestly don't know, and it asks many interesting questions.
Even beyond that though, I "enjoy" (sarcastically) how there's a tendency to turn differences into conflict. Anecdotally, choices around interest in sports seem to cue more dissent than as mentioned in many other areas, but I see similar trends in the "big three" of politics, religion, and money. Similar patterns have sparked in other areas (gender differences; and I'm probably risking a hailstorm for even mentioning this) as well, there are certain topics people seem to be less willing to "live and let live" about.
This turned into such a ramble. I may edit it later, I hope there are some useful thoughts in there somewhere.
The takeaway being, there are infinitely many different reasons to like or not like something. The fact that this comes up in particular for sports communicates to me that there's a different dynamic at play here. Do we often see this conflict for things like soy? Ballet? Curling? Sports in america seems to stand alone in that any deviance from the norm gets picked apart with a VERY fine toothed comb, perhaps as a factor of societal norms. I wonder if we'd see the same examination of soccer non-fans in the broader world or if this is a more american phenomena, I honestly don't know, and it asks many interesting questions.
Even beyond that though, I "enjoy" (sarcastically) how there's a tendency to turn differences into conflict. Anecdotally, choices around interest in sports seem to cue more dissent than as mentioned in many other areas, but I see similar trends in the "big three" of politics, religion, and money. Similar patterns have sparked in other areas (gender differences; and I'm probably risking a hailstorm for even mentioning this) as well, there are certain topics people seem to be less willing to "live and let live" about.
This turned into such a ramble. I may edit it later, I hope there are some useful thoughts in there somewhere.
I agree that I was probably over-generalizing.
Interestingly, as an alternative to the "big three," a feature of talking about sports is that it risks no enmity because the taking of sides is assumed to be good natured.
Interestingly, as an alternative to the "big three," a feature of talking about sports is that it risks no enmity because the taking of sides is assumed to be good natured.
It's interesting you bring that up, since going out drinking with your boss in certain cultures is also a venue in which some degree of "friction" is assumed because "oh we're drinking of course it's all good natured" so that people can be more open; but has a reputation for some of this same "if you don't like it there's something off about you" effect for those who chose not to I was mentioning re: American football.
Not that I can't see the proposed appeal, I just mean to comment on the somewhat unique additional pressures these interactions carry with them.
(Deleted following post due to accidental double reply-click)
Not that I can't see the proposed appeal, I just mean to comment on the somewhat unique additional pressures these interactions carry with them.
(Deleted following post due to accidental double reply-click)
[deleted]
Ha, yeah. Some of us were abused mercilessly by the "jocks". On top of that, the school administration, and wider town culture didn't give a shit, because to them the young sports players were local superstars, and could do no wrong.
And if a few young nerds kill them themselves because of the abuse, what harm right? As long as our school sports team is on form it's all cool.
If not liking sports makes me a snob then ok, I can live with that. but let's not pretend working class sports culture is all good clean fun. It can be as venomous as any other culture.
And if a few young nerds kill them themselves because of the abuse, what harm right? As long as our school sports team is on form it's all cool.
If not liking sports makes me a snob then ok, I can live with that. but let's not pretend working class sports culture is all good clean fun. It can be as venomous as any other culture.
> If not liking sports makes me a snob then ok, I can live with that. but let's not pretend working class sports culture is all good clean fun. It can be as venomous as any other culture.
As evidenced by the top comment in this very thread calling out non-sports fans as being elitist snobs without social skills. What a joke.
As evidenced by the top comment in this very thread calling out non-sports fans as being elitist snobs without social skills. What a joke.
There's a big difference between not being a sports fan, and going out of your way to be an elitist snob about it (even if that "going out of your way" stems from emotional self-defense).
Same thing happens with math, or programming, or various other intellectual pursuits. People will specifically talk about how bad they are at math, and wear it like a badge of pride. Or, they can just not enjoy it without being rude.
Same thing happens with math, or programming, or various other intellectual pursuits. People will specifically talk about how bad they are at math, and wear it like a badge of pride. Or, they can just not enjoy it without being rude.
> There's a big difference between not being a sports fan, and going out of your way to be an elitist snob about it
This entire line of reasoning strikes me as such an epic straw man. What is the difference between not being a sports fan, and being an "elitist snob"? It's completely subjective.
This entire line of reasoning strikes me as such an epic straw man. What is the difference between not being a sports fan, and being an "elitist snob"? It's completely subjective.
There is a difference between playing sports, supporting your kids playing sports and following professional sports. I think there a far more people who have disdain for pro sport fandom than participation in sports.
Strongly agree.
Sports as a team activity, a friendly space to be physically active and competitive (with varying degrees of physical injury risk depending on the sport), are fantastic. I was a three-sport athlete in high school and consider the lessons learned in that context just as important as some of the coursework. My cross-country team was full of AP math and science kids, while my soccer team had more of the kids who smoked pot and goofed off in class. Even supporting the teams I didn't belong to meant finding common ground with those I might otherwise have never associated with.
When I consider the professional sports phenomenon, I can't suppress my knowledge of its more insidious aspects. The ludicrous salaries in an age when the disparity between rich and poor is becoming more painfully exacerbated, and the effect that this allure has on the American educational system. The reinforcement of racially motivated prejudices. The disregard for players' physical and emotional well-being, as well as other more casual disgraces that Marshawn Lynch could readily identify. The vitriol frequently associated with team fandom (which I am fortunate to have escaped despite growing up in the heart of the SEC).
I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of collegiate or professional sports. Once in a blue moon I'll even attend a football or hockey game at a friend's invitation, and I whoop and cheer and critique just like the next guy. But don't ask me to fall in line with the majority and unreservedly celebrate professional sports just so I can "identify with the common man". I don't watch the Super Bowl, despite invitations, not because I feel some elitist need to prove my refinement to others, but because it's difficult for me to support a system that contradicts my values on so many counts.
Sports as a team activity, a friendly space to be physically active and competitive (with varying degrees of physical injury risk depending on the sport), are fantastic. I was a three-sport athlete in high school and consider the lessons learned in that context just as important as some of the coursework. My cross-country team was full of AP math and science kids, while my soccer team had more of the kids who smoked pot and goofed off in class. Even supporting the teams I didn't belong to meant finding common ground with those I might otherwise have never associated with.
When I consider the professional sports phenomenon, I can't suppress my knowledge of its more insidious aspects. The ludicrous salaries in an age when the disparity between rich and poor is becoming more painfully exacerbated, and the effect that this allure has on the American educational system. The reinforcement of racially motivated prejudices. The disregard for players' physical and emotional well-being, as well as other more casual disgraces that Marshawn Lynch could readily identify. The vitriol frequently associated with team fandom (which I am fortunate to have escaped despite growing up in the heart of the SEC).
I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of collegiate or professional sports. Once in a blue moon I'll even attend a football or hockey game at a friend's invitation, and I whoop and cheer and critique just like the next guy. But don't ask me to fall in line with the majority and unreservedly celebrate professional sports just so I can "identify with the common man". I don't watch the Super Bowl, despite invitations, not because I feel some elitist need to prove my refinement to others, but because it's difficult for me to support a system that contradicts my values on so many counts.
>When a kids says, "Hockey. Meh. It is a bunch grown men with sticks chasing a black piece of rubber around a sheet of ice"
When somebody says that, you just have to rephrase them a'la T-Rex. "It's a bunch of scientists stating their hypothesis that they're the best at using wooden sticks to direct the motion of a vulcanized rubber puck across a surface with a friction coefficient of .15!" [1] and then hockey becomes a collaborative science experiment, repeated twice a week, and broadcast on television.
[1]: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2421
When somebody says that, you just have to rephrase them a'la T-Rex. "It's a bunch of scientists stating their hypothesis that they're the best at using wooden sticks to direct the motion of a vulcanized rubber puck across a surface with a friction coefficient of .15!" [1] and then hockey becomes a collaborative science experiment, repeated twice a week, and broadcast on television.
[1]: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2421
So I'm not allowed to dislike sports? It makes me a snob?
You are allowed to dislike sports, even hate sports.
What you shouldn't do is brag about your ignorance or dislike/hate of it as a way of projecting your status.
I don't follow baseball or most sports, but folks might ask me about so-and-so team, and my response is often "Oh, I don't really follow X, but <insert another topic you find interesting and may have common discussion point on>".
As the article points out, for most folks just exhibiting how much you dont care to follow sports ends the conversation, and makes you seem somewhat snobbish and like you don't want to engage on any topic. However, expressing it in a more open way, where you then volley back an alternative topic keeps the conversation alive.
Heck, even if you dont follow or don't care about the topic, the other person apparently does -- so try not to be too dismissive or indifferent..
What you shouldn't do is brag about your ignorance or dislike/hate of it as a way of projecting your status.
I don't follow baseball or most sports, but folks might ask me about so-and-so team, and my response is often "Oh, I don't really follow X, but <insert another topic you find interesting and may have common discussion point on>".
As the article points out, for most folks just exhibiting how much you dont care to follow sports ends the conversation, and makes you seem somewhat snobbish and like you don't want to engage on any topic. However, expressing it in a more open way, where you then volley back an alternative topic keeps the conversation alive.
Heck, even if you dont follow or don't care about the topic, the other person apparently does -- so try not to be too dismissive or indifferent..
I don't believe so, per se. I think though, that if - as there are examples in this thread - you feel compelled to be sure everyone is aware of the disdain you have, replete with remarks like "overpaid gorillas" "getting paid far too much to chase a piece of rubber around with some sticks", then you do veer into snob territory, a la The Onion's Man Who Doesn't Own A TV.
While there are many valid arguments to be made about sport and the importance thereof, it's also condescending for someone (not you specifically) to act like this - there's quite a degree of talent and skill and hard work that I think a lot of people don't quite realize. "Oh, he's a good player, but I could have played college ball, and made it".
No, most likely you couldn't. There's a huge gap in skill.
I played cricket as a teen and we had two international players come to our club for a BBQ and hit around session. The kids bowling to them, they just blocked.
The adults, several of whom played at the state level themselves and to us were "very skilled"?
No. Not in comparison. Everything they threw at these guys was hit out of the park. I'm not exaggerating. Fast, slow, skilled players. Every. Single. Ball. Out of the park without a bounce. It gives you a realization of the level of talent and skill to play at that level.
While there are many valid arguments to be made about sport and the importance thereof, it's also condescending for someone (not you specifically) to act like this - there's quite a degree of talent and skill and hard work that I think a lot of people don't quite realize. "Oh, he's a good player, but I could have played college ball, and made it".
No, most likely you couldn't. There's a huge gap in skill.
I played cricket as a teen and we had two international players come to our club for a BBQ and hit around session. The kids bowling to them, they just blocked.
The adults, several of whom played at the state level themselves and to us were "very skilled"?
No. Not in comparison. Everything they threw at these guys was hit out of the park. I'm not exaggerating. Fast, slow, skilled players. Every. Single. Ball. Out of the park without a bounce. It gives you a realization of the level of talent and skill to play at that level.
Yes, this thread has been a bit depressing. I don't see why being a fan of different sports and different teams should preclude people from being also simultaneously interested in science and math and other 'intellectual' pursuits.
Becoming a professional player requires as much (if not much more) hard work and talent as becoming a software engineer. These people dedicate their lives to the task, and are genuinely much much better than 99% of humans at their task, and are getting paid for their ability to entertain.
I don't get why people would look down upon these players and their fans.
Becoming a professional player requires as much (if not much more) hard work and talent as becoming a software engineer. These people dedicate their lives to the task, and are genuinely much much better than 99% of humans at their task, and are getting paid for their ability to entertain.
I don't get why people would look down upon these players and their fans.
I just find that trying to live vicariously through other men is emasculating. I will play a pickup game with any of my working class neighbors any day of the week. But I'm not going to talk about the players like they're people I know (like men do in my barber shop). Call it what you will. I connect with working class folks better still than these (mostly) white privileged bubble inhabiting social dilettantes.
It seems to me that rooting out and shaming "snobs" is becoming something of a cultural pastime. It really bothers people when you don't like what they like. So it must be because you're an asshole snob, not because you just don't like it. It's related to all the anti-"hipster" crap that has popped up in recent years. It's fun because skewering "hipsters" is puncturing pretensions, you're taking cultural snobs down a peg.
I find all this behavior symptomatic - even if someone is being a snob, so what? Ignore them if their opinions are bad.
I find all this behavior symptomatic - even if someone is being a snob, so what? Ignore them if their opinions are bad.
It isn't about not liking what other people like, it's about being a jerk about it.
I for instance don't care for sports. And that is how I phrase it when asked. If there is a sports related conversation taking place I am generally more upset at the snobs demanding to be a part of the conversation just so they can shit all over sports in general, than the people that are spending an hour talking about a specific player, game, or statistic.
It very much is a social thing where you need to know how to politely excuse yourself from conversations and situations you do not want to be a part of rather than trying to evangelize your view that they suck.
I for instance don't care for sports. And that is how I phrase it when asked. If there is a sports related conversation taking place I am generally more upset at the snobs demanding to be a part of the conversation just so they can shit all over sports in general, than the people that are spending an hour talking about a specific player, game, or statistic.
It very much is a social thing where you need to know how to politely excuse yourself from conversations and situations you do not want to be a part of rather than trying to evangelize your view that they suck.
I use the "I'm not a sports guy" variant. It just doesn't interest me. Unfortunately, most movies, music, and tv have lost my interest as well. No snobbery or moral objections, it just doesn't interest me.
> It isn't about not liking what other people like, it's about being a jerk about it.
Well, that jerkiness is often a reaction to the jerkiness of many sports-lovers, who abuse one in grade school and raise one's taxes to pay for their hobbies in adulthood, and spend so much time expecting that everyone shares their enthusiasms.
> It very much is a social thing where you need to know how to politely excuse yourself from conversations and situations you do not want to be a part of rather than trying to evangelize your view that they suck.
I (eventually) learnt that not everyone shared my love of science fiction and fantasy; I don't trot out Tolkien or Asimov every time I'm talking to most folks. It would be nice if folks didn't trot out football or baseball when talking to me. If I had to learn to suppress my enthusiasms except around the like-minded, why haven't they?
Well, that jerkiness is often a reaction to the jerkiness of many sports-lovers, who abuse one in grade school and raise one's taxes to pay for their hobbies in adulthood, and spend so much time expecting that everyone shares their enthusiasms.
> It very much is a social thing where you need to know how to politely excuse yourself from conversations and situations you do not want to be a part of rather than trying to evangelize your view that they suck.
I (eventually) learnt that not everyone shared my love of science fiction and fantasy; I don't trot out Tolkien or Asimov every time I'm talking to most folks. It would be nice if folks didn't trot out football or baseball when talking to me. If I had to learn to suppress my enthusiasms except around the like-minded, why haven't they?
A lot of people are gonna say I'm a jerk and think I'm militant if I don't like what they like. Fuck that. People decide they don't like you even if you didn't do anything wrong, all the time.
I agree that seems to be a common pastime on discussion forums, even such a fine one as this. However, I was happy to see that the blog post simply focused on what the author could do to improve, rather than lambasting others.
> It really bothers people when you don't like what they like.
I don't believe that is the reason behind snob bashing. What really bothers people is aligning ones likes and dislikes as to boost perceived social status. People perceive it as grabbing social status undeservedly, so the social instinct for punishing transgressions kicks in.
> even if someone is being a snob, so what? Ignore them if their opinions are bad.
You have missed an important point the author made. It was not about one snob but rather a whole social group.
I don't believe that is the reason behind snob bashing. What really bothers people is aligning ones likes and dislikes as to boost perceived social status. People perceive it as grabbing social status undeservedly, so the social instinct for punishing transgressions kicks in.
> even if someone is being a snob, so what? Ignore them if their opinions are bad.
You have missed an important point the author made. It was not about one snob but rather a whole social group.
[deleted]
There is a difference between playing sports and watching sports. I would never think negatively of anyone doing sports. I think it is a very healthy attitude.
On the other hand there are people who watch or read/talk about sports for many hours per day ignoring other aspects of personal growth.
On the other hand there are people who watch or read/talk about sports for many hours per day ignoring other aspects of personal growth.
[deleted]
I don't care about sports. If you start a conversation with me about sports, it'll be short. I'm not being mean to anyone who likes sports, I just don't care. You don't get to tell me that I'm wrong for not sharing your interest. Liking sports isn't obligatory.
The ability to talk to people about things that interest them but not yourself is a very important skill to cultivate. The intersection of yourself with "people worth knowing and talking to" is bigger than the intersection of yourself with "people who share your interests".
I have the ability to talk to people about lots of things. I talk to all kinds of people about all kinds of things. If someone only has one interest which is sports, I can politely demur or listen depending on whether I have the time, exactly the same as if I met someone who wants to monologue at me about locomotives for 6 hours. But I'm not working in sales, and I'm sure as hell not obligated to anyone to fake enthusiasm about some narrow subject that simply never had any interest for me.
What's awful is that you get to inflict this interest on everyone with general social approval, and you even get to tell people on HN that they are socially defective if they don't pretend to share that interest - but by no means would the same courtesy ever be extended to some kid who wants to talk about Minecraft for hours. That's nerdy and gay, sports is for real men.
Excuse me if I don't take your "advice" seriously.
What's awful is that you get to inflict this interest on everyone with general social approval, and you even get to tell people on HN that they are socially defective if they don't pretend to share that interest - but by no means would the same courtesy ever be extended to some kid who wants to talk about Minecraft for hours. That's nerdy and gay, sports is for real men.
Excuse me if I don't take your "advice" seriously.
I would (and do) give the same "advice" about being able to enjoy talking to people with non-mainstream interests. People in general aren't great at being interested in people who aren't interested in the same things as them. Nerds are better at it than most, because nerd-dom is largely defined by having wide swaths of interests, but sports seems to be a widespread blind spot, possibly because of resentment at having their own interests scoffed at by many sports fans (at least I'm pretty sure that's where my past anti-sports feelings came from).
I am not into most sports, and know nothing about football/basketball/baseball but somehow can manage to make conversation with whoever. It's not like the general populace is monomaniacally obsessed with sports to the point that they are incapable of communicating with people who aren't sports fans.
> The ability to talk to people about things that interest them but not yourself is a very important skill to cultivate.
Isn't that a two-way street though? If I must feign interest in the saga of Manchester United or the troubles of Peyton Manning, why mustn't others likewise be expected to feign interest in Njál's Saga or the tale of Luthien & Beren?
Well, the pragmatic reason is that most folks care about sports, and most folks don't care about fantastic fiction. And you're quite right that there are benefits to knowing and connecting with more folks than just those who share one's interests.
But it's annoying to have to conform to their interests and never have them conform to one's own nonetheless. Kinda like being annoyed at gravity, I guess, but it's still annoying.
Isn't that a two-way street though? If I must feign interest in the saga of Manchester United or the troubles of Peyton Manning, why mustn't others likewise be expected to feign interest in Njál's Saga or the tale of Luthien & Beren?
Well, the pragmatic reason is that most folks care about sports, and most folks don't care about fantastic fiction. And you're quite right that there are benefits to knowing and connecting with more folks than just those who share one's interests.
But it's annoying to have to conform to their interests and never have them conform to one's own nonetheless. Kinda like being annoyed at gravity, I guess, but it's still annoying.
It's definitely a two-way street, but you can only control your own side of the street. Here's how I think of it: I don't particularly enjoy talking to people who can't find any interest in things outside their normal bubble, so I don't want to be the kind of narrowly-interested person that I don't particularly enjoy talking to.
I agree that it's annoying and frustrating.
I agree that it's annoying and frustrating.
I wouldn't be surprised if the intersection of people worth talking to/with and people who can't or won't want to talk about sports is pretty close to the empty set.
Professional sports are for the dumb - a modern version of the Roman circus to keep the unwashed masses occupied and away from the important things in life - politics, finance, economics.
You must have forgotten that Niels Bohr was an olympic athlete as well as a nobel prize winner in physics.
You're confusing the physicist Niels with his mathematician brother Harald. Niels did play soccer but never on the national team.
Yeah, never mind the 99.99% of Nobel winners that aren't/weren't athletes.
The point was that being a tremendous athlete and an intellectual/scientist aren't mutually exclusive.
Edit: Also, astronauts.
So there's that.
Edit: Also, astronauts.
So there's that.
You say that as though modern politics isn't a bunch of people mindlessly rooting for their favorite team.
No, it's not. What you describe is the political theater - another form of circus. All decisions are made behind closed doors by very smart people.
The owners and general managers who run sports franchises aren't just as adept?
What is the difference?
What is the difference?
You've clearly never been to Yankee Stadium.
I grew up working class and was a boxer. I love Ice Hockey, Football, UFC, NASCAR, Motocross, and heavy metal, but I am also an academic and an intellectual. Many highly educated people have told me so, I just don't have the paper to prove it.
I hear ya. I wrestled in high-school, did a lot of BMX biking in my younger years (and still ride a little, even now in my 40's), used to dabble in amateur power-lifting a bit, mountain-bike these days, and used to participate in some brazilian jiu-jitsu / submission wrestling / MMA stuff. I also grew up watching NASCAR and Indy Car racing, and I'm a diehard NFL fan (#PHINSUP!!!) But I'm also a pretty well educated (3 college degrees) guy who listens to both heavy-metal and classical music, reads Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Foucalt, Wittgenstein, etc. for fun, reads The Economist semi-regularly, etc.
I won't use the term "intellectual" to refer to myself, but many of my friends think of me as something of an "intellectual". I just think the whole thing is silly. I'm "working class" in many ways, but I share characteristics, attributes and interests with the intellectuals. So yeah, I would say that this whole "disdain of the working class and working class interests, by intellectuals" me strikes me as pretty stupid.
When a kids says, "Hockey. Meh. It is a bunch grown men with sticks chasing a black piece of rubber around a sheet of ice" he is saying in effect "What you love is obtuse and low brow and I don't care how that makes you feel." And that is just rude.*
It's also ignorant. There is a lot of wisdom and truth to be learned on the hockey ice, the football field, the wrestling mat, etc. Sport is just a compressed version of life in many ways.
I hear ya. I wrestled in high-school, did a lot of BMX biking in my younger years (and still ride a little, even now in my 40's), used to dabble in amateur power-lifting a bit, mountain-bike these days, and used to participate in some brazilian jiu-jitsu / submission wrestling / MMA stuff. I also grew up watching NASCAR and Indy Car racing, and I'm a diehard NFL fan (#PHINSUP!!!) But I'm also a pretty well educated (3 college degrees) guy who listens to both heavy-metal and classical music, reads Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Foucalt, Wittgenstein, etc. for fun, reads The Economist semi-regularly, etc.
I won't use the term "intellectual" to refer to myself, but many of my friends think of me as something of an "intellectual". I just think the whole thing is silly. I'm "working class" in many ways, but I share characteristics, attributes and interests with the intellectuals. So yeah, I would say that this whole "disdain of the working class and working class interests, by intellectuals" me strikes me as pretty stupid.
When a kids says, "Hockey. Meh. It is a bunch grown men with sticks chasing a black piece of rubber around a sheet of ice" he is saying in effect "What you love is obtuse and low brow and I don't care how that makes you feel." And that is just rude.*
It's also ignorant. There is a lot of wisdom and truth to be learned on the hockey ice, the football field, the wrestling mat, etc. Sport is just a compressed version of life in many ways.
Cultivating an active ignorance about sports is stupid--knowing more things never hurt anyone. And I definitely see that trend in my peers.
That said, I wouldn't go the further step to say that people should somehow be obligated to like sports. I don't like most sports--for reasons brought up, but not really expanded by the article.
My main beef with sports is the effects sports have on education. My city spends millions annually on the maintenance of stadiums, simultaneously cutting budget for schools. In turn sports figures become role models for kids, and sports talent is a poor indicator of being a good role model. Even when sports figures aren't horrible people, their fame encourages children to seek careers in sports--a field where very few will be successful--at the expense of their education. Even when sports scholarships allow people to go to college who otherwise couldn't, sports scholarships rarely result in good scholars. Professional sports are directly counterproductive to increasing education.
At a personal rather than societal level, I don't see a point in emotionally investing myself in something that has no actual effect on my life. I'm not above having a few beers with friends while watching the game, but I would rather have a few beers with friends without a big screen TV distracting us from actually interacting with advertisements for products I don't need or want.
And I don't need another way to make small talk, regardless of class. I don't want to make small talk about things the person has only a side interest in--I want to find out what people are working on, what they care about. How is your spouse doing? What about your kids? Are you working on anything interesting? Making some progress on a hobby? Getting closer to a goal, paying off loans, buying a car or house? People actually are affected by these things--they're things that actually matter and make a difference in their lives. If you show interest in these things you're showing interest in them, in their lives.
So no, when I show overt contempt for sports I am showing contempt for people. All the reasons I don't like sports are pro-social.
That said, I wouldn't go the further step to say that people should somehow be obligated to like sports. I don't like most sports--for reasons brought up, but not really expanded by the article.
My main beef with sports is the effects sports have on education. My city spends millions annually on the maintenance of stadiums, simultaneously cutting budget for schools. In turn sports figures become role models for kids, and sports talent is a poor indicator of being a good role model. Even when sports figures aren't horrible people, their fame encourages children to seek careers in sports--a field where very few will be successful--at the expense of their education. Even when sports scholarships allow people to go to college who otherwise couldn't, sports scholarships rarely result in good scholars. Professional sports are directly counterproductive to increasing education.
At a personal rather than societal level, I don't see a point in emotionally investing myself in something that has no actual effect on my life. I'm not above having a few beers with friends while watching the game, but I would rather have a few beers with friends without a big screen TV distracting us from actually interacting with advertisements for products I don't need or want.
And I don't need another way to make small talk, regardless of class. I don't want to make small talk about things the person has only a side interest in--I want to find out what people are working on, what they care about. How is your spouse doing? What about your kids? Are you working on anything interesting? Making some progress on a hobby? Getting closer to a goal, paying off loans, buying a car or house? People actually are affected by these things--they're things that actually matter and make a difference in their lives. If you show interest in these things you're showing interest in them, in their lives.
So no, when I show overt contempt for sports I am showing contempt for people. All the reasons I don't like sports are pro-social.
I would say that your comments are exactly what the article is talking about. You've decided to exclude yourself because you feel the existence and importance placed on it by others is misplaced and essentially stupid. So you are in essence calling people who like professional sports at best misinformed and at worst stupid.
That's pretty much the definition of elitism as far as I know it. You think you know more than the common man.
That's pretty much the definition of elitism as far as I know it. You think you know more than the common man.
That would be true if I ever said any of this when people talk about sports, but I don't. I just politely excuse myself. I dislike sports but I don't have anything against people who like sports.
The reason I'm posting is that the article attacked my viewpoint.
I don't think people who like sports are misinformed or stupid, I think they value different things than I do. There are plenty of very smart people who like sports.
> You think you know more than the common man.
And this is the PR that sports has, that it's the purview of the common man, when in fact sports fuck over the common man more often than not. You're only looking at the viewers of sports. What about the people who buy teams, sponsor athletes, etc. Are they "common men"?
And yes, I do know more than the common man on this subject, not because I'm inherently better in any way, but because I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't. Everyone out there knows more about some subject than I do--that's just how people work. If you think that knowing more about this subject is somehow a bad thing, then who is really cultivating ignorance here?
One of the striking features of classism in America is that the upper class has managed to represent their own interests as being the interests of the common man. Who cares more about the common man--someone who wants to slash funding for the common man's education to pay for stadiums, or someone who wants to pay for education?
The reason I'm posting is that the article attacked my viewpoint.
I don't think people who like sports are misinformed or stupid, I think they value different things than I do. There are plenty of very smart people who like sports.
> You think you know more than the common man.
And this is the PR that sports has, that it's the purview of the common man, when in fact sports fuck over the common man more often than not. You're only looking at the viewers of sports. What about the people who buy teams, sponsor athletes, etc. Are they "common men"?
And yes, I do know more than the common man on this subject, not because I'm inherently better in any way, but because I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't. Everyone out there knows more about some subject than I do--that's just how people work. If you think that knowing more about this subject is somehow a bad thing, then who is really cultivating ignorance here?
One of the striking features of classism in America is that the upper class has managed to represent their own interests as being the interests of the common man. Who cares more about the common man--someone who wants to slash funding for the common man's education to pay for stadiums, or someone who wants to pay for education?
Someone could make arguments about how involvement in sports teaches kids about things like work ethic and teamwork. One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes.
The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them? Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.
Then combine that with the fact that you actually go through the effort to excuse yourself when people talk about sports? You must be a lot of fun at parties. Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about? I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it. Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.
I should add quickly that I agree personally with a lot of what you are saying, but do feel the issue of how important sports should be in American culture as a lot more nuanced. That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint. That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them. Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.
The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them? Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.
Then combine that with the fact that you actually go through the effort to excuse yourself when people talk about sports? You must be a lot of fun at parties. Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about? I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it. Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.
I should add quickly that I agree personally with a lot of what you are saying, but do feel the issue of how important sports should be in American culture as a lot more nuanced. That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint. That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them. Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.
> Someone could make arguments about how involvement in sports teaches kids about things like work ethic and teamwork.
I think grade school sports programs are important for teaching kids how to stay in shape, among other things. That's a very different discussion from the discussion we're having, which is about professional sports.
> One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes.
One could easily disprove this argument, at least in my city. This argument is made, but over the last decade since we built a new stadium, property values around the stadium have gone down, and cashflow from the stadium goes to its owners who pay very little taxes.
> The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them?
You said: "One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes." This pretty effectively proves you haven't educated yourself on this subject.
> Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.
What great important lessons do people learn from professional sports? Please do tell. Remember we're not talking about playing sports, we're talking about watching professional sports.
> You must be a lot of fun at parties.
The parties I've thrown are generally pretty packed.
> Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about?
I'm socially calibrated enough to know when people are losing interest in what I'ms saying and change the subject. But if people feign interest well, I'd really rather they didn't, because there are a ton of subjects I could connect with someone on, and there's no reason for us to talk about stuff that we aren't both interested in.
> I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it.
This is a ridiculous kind of false positivity does nobody any good. If you're interested in someone, then why settle for a feigned connection over a topic you aren't really interested in when you could create a real connection over a real shared interest?
> Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.
"At least I'm not smug," he said smugly.
> That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint.
This feel-good crap is ruining America. If all viewpoints are equally valid then why are you arguing with me? My viewpoint is valid, right? But viewpoints aren't equally valid. Some viewpoints are wrong.
> That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them.
So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.
> Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.
Not every opinion is valuable--many opinions are ignorant and misplaced, and it's extremely harmful to treat them as if they were equally valuable. Children die of diseases that should be extinct because people treat the opinions of anti-vacc-ers as valid. Global warming initiatives fail because people treat the opinions of politicians who know nothing about climate as valid. And kids are growing up without proper education because people treat the glamour of sports as a valid thing to spend money on.
I'm not going to pretend this kind of harmful ignorance is just as valid as educated opinions just to make people feel good about themselves while they're around me.
I think grade school sports programs are important for teaching kids how to stay in shape, among other things. That's a very different discussion from the discussion we're having, which is about professional sports.
> One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes.
One could easily disprove this argument, at least in my city. This argument is made, but over the last decade since we built a new stadium, property values around the stadium have gone down, and cashflow from the stadium goes to its owners who pay very little taxes.
> The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them?
You said: "One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes." This pretty effectively proves you haven't educated yourself on this subject.
> Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.
What great important lessons do people learn from professional sports? Please do tell. Remember we're not talking about playing sports, we're talking about watching professional sports.
> You must be a lot of fun at parties.
The parties I've thrown are generally pretty packed.
> Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about?
I'm socially calibrated enough to know when people are losing interest in what I'ms saying and change the subject. But if people feign interest well, I'd really rather they didn't, because there are a ton of subjects I could connect with someone on, and there's no reason for us to talk about stuff that we aren't both interested in.
> I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it.
This is a ridiculous kind of false positivity does nobody any good. If you're interested in someone, then why settle for a feigned connection over a topic you aren't really interested in when you could create a real connection over a real shared interest?
> Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.
"At least I'm not smug," he said smugly.
> That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint.
This feel-good crap is ruining America. If all viewpoints are equally valid then why are you arguing with me? My viewpoint is valid, right? But viewpoints aren't equally valid. Some viewpoints are wrong.
> That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them.
So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.
> Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.
Not every opinion is valuable--many opinions are ignorant and misplaced, and it's extremely harmful to treat them as if they were equally valuable. Children die of diseases that should be extinct because people treat the opinions of anti-vacc-ers as valid. Global warming initiatives fail because people treat the opinions of politicians who know nothing about climate as valid. And kids are growing up without proper education because people treat the glamour of sports as a valid thing to spend money on.
I'm not going to pretend this kind of harmful ignorance is just as valid as educated opinions just to make people feel good about themselves while they're around me.
I think you pretty much summed up my point. You are obviously in love with yourself and know there is nothing you can learn from others. I would congratulate you, but it seems like you already do plenty of that yourself.
As I said before, I agree with you stance in many ways in professional sports. Yet, for some reason you felt the need to argue my hypothetical points? Strange stuff. Unlike you, I realize these things are not hard facts but opinions and best guesses bases upon available data.
Whether or not professional sports are a positive thing, depends very much upon what a persons priorities are. Many people would shut down all funding for the arts tomorrow if they had the choice. We could argue that in the same way. These discussions go nowhere because they are based on a person's individual priorities and are also why they are debated to death and never get anywhere. They are not topics with a definite answer.
The "feel-good crap" is people not telling you that the only reason you feel so strongly about this is because you have a bias likely based on some experiences from your childhood about sports. If you were rational you would think that maybe 100,000,000+ Americans are probably not idiots. But judging by the size of your ego, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought they were.
Oh and "So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.": You realize that sounds insane, right? Are you actually saying that in the US children cannot read because of sports stadiums?
As I said before, I agree with you stance in many ways in professional sports. Yet, for some reason you felt the need to argue my hypothetical points? Strange stuff. Unlike you, I realize these things are not hard facts but opinions and best guesses bases upon available data.
Whether or not professional sports are a positive thing, depends very much upon what a persons priorities are. Many people would shut down all funding for the arts tomorrow if they had the choice. We could argue that in the same way. These discussions go nowhere because they are based on a person's individual priorities and are also why they are debated to death and never get anywhere. They are not topics with a definite answer.
The "feel-good crap" is people not telling you that the only reason you feel so strongly about this is because you have a bias likely based on some experiences from your childhood about sports. If you were rational you would think that maybe 100,000,000+ Americans are probably not idiots. But judging by the size of your ego, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought they were.
Oh and "So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.": You realize that sounds insane, right? Are you actually saying that in the US children cannot read because of sports stadiums?
> Are you actually saying that in the US children cannot read because of sports stadiums?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I've explained in my top post why I believe that to be true.
You're not even attempting to refute what I've said, you're just calling me egotistical and insane. So unless you have anything on-topic to say, my point is adequately defended and I'm done here.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I've explained in my top post why I believe that to be true.
You're not even attempting to refute what I've said, you're just calling me egotistical and insane. So unless you have anything on-topic to say, my point is adequately defended and I'm done here.
There is nothing wrong with elitism, so long as it is being done by actual elites. Do you want the seal team coming to rescue you to consist of the best of the best (meaning the average Joe has no chance of getting in) or whomever applied?
Elitism is another word for the post modern idea that A isn't A, that nothing is absolute and there is no truth.
Elitism is another word for the post modern idea that A isn't A, that nothing is absolute and there is no truth.
But why is it incorrect to say that the most people on HN know more than the common man?
> When a kids says, "Hockey. Meh. It is a bunch grown men with sticks chasing a black piece of rubber around a sheet of ice" he is saying in effect "What you love is obtuse and low brow and I don't care how that makes you feel." And that is just rude.
Kids who openly show their disdain for STEM disciplines--especially mathematics--are legion. At a societal scale, courtesy is a two-way street.
Kids who openly show their disdain for STEM disciplines--especially mathematics--are legion. At a societal scale, courtesy is a two-way street.
Things that you're ignoring:
- At least in America, there is a disdain among the working class for intellectual pursuits, and that manifests itself in their children leading to the more athletic (and therefore more likely to be on a sports team) students pushing the less athletic (and therefore more likely to be into intellectual pursuits) students around. It's hardly surprising that the students on the receiving end of this will reject sports as it seems to celebrate the very people that push them around.
- All of those "small towns" out there where excelling at sports is grounds for even the adults of the community to engage in academic fraud and cover-ups of criminal behaviour so that the sports team (and said students' future sports prospects) aren't affected.
I don't think that this is a good reason to just paint all of sports with the same brush. There are plenty of students that end up on sports teams that aren't necessarily one of the "cool kids" or bullies. To paint them with the same brush by association isn't a good thing, but it's understandable why this happens (and why it propagates into adult-hood).
- At least in America, there is a disdain among the working class for intellectual pursuits, and that manifests itself in their children leading to the more athletic (and therefore more likely to be on a sports team) students pushing the less athletic (and therefore more likely to be into intellectual pursuits) students around. It's hardly surprising that the students on the receiving end of this will reject sports as it seems to celebrate the very people that push them around.
- All of those "small towns" out there where excelling at sports is grounds for even the adults of the community to engage in academic fraud and cover-ups of criminal behaviour so that the sports team (and said students' future sports prospects) aren't affected.
I don't think that this is a good reason to just paint all of sports with the same brush. There are plenty of students that end up on sports teams that aren't necessarily one of the "cool kids" or bullies. To paint them with the same brush by association isn't a good thing, but it's understandable why this happens (and why it propagates into adult-hood).
For every person who proudly says that they don't know anything about the NFL there are 1000 people who proudly say that they don't know anything about math.
I have found most people I've me that seemed to want to not like something probably had some deeper issues causing them to do so. My childhood was very encouraging and inviting so I developed many wildly different interests. Every thing, like every person, is interesting once you learn a bit about it/them.
It's definitely a sign of maturity to be able to treat sports and people who are obsessed with sports seriously when you know better. The fact is, the truth is unfortunate. Professional sports are a bunch of grown men playing little kid games who receive an incredibly and disgustingly disproportionate amount of money and adult attention.
I believe that children and adolescents playing sports is fantastic. If people want to continue playing into their adulthood for fun and health, that's great too. Casual interest in sports is fine with me. I prefer to see participation to spectatorship.
What I and many other people have a problem with is sports in schools and professional sports being treated as if it is intensely important, more important than direly serious things that keep people alive, fed, free and healthy.
I believe that children and adolescents playing sports is fantastic. If people want to continue playing into their adulthood for fun and health, that's great too. Casual interest in sports is fine with me. I prefer to see participation to spectatorship.
What I and many other people have a problem with is sports in schools and professional sports being treated as if it is intensely important, more important than direly serious things that keep people alive, fed, free and healthy.
And what are you doing to keep people alive, fed, free, and healthy?
Saying this is about me personally is changing the subject. The alternatives in school and life to which I am referring are pursuits such as medicine, mathematics, programming, electronics, chemistry, politics, business management and so forth.
It's a cliché which I wouldn't think I would have to repeat, but I would love to see people get as excited about mathematics stars in schools as basketball players. I would love to see more people who get as excited about their city council as football drafts. I would love to see the money spent on stadiums and television sports networks spent on improving peoples lives in concrete ways other than entertainment.
It's not that I don't consider sports legitimate entertainment. Clearly people feel that their lives are enriched from participating or spectating. Great. Good for them. The problem I see is a matter of priority. Society as a whole treats watching other people play sports as if it's something as critically important, heck, more important than say, hospitals.
It's a cliché which I wouldn't think I would have to repeat, but I would love to see people get as excited about mathematics stars in schools as basketball players. I would love to see more people who get as excited about their city council as football drafts. I would love to see the money spent on stadiums and television sports networks spent on improving peoples lives in concrete ways other than entertainment.
It's not that I don't consider sports legitimate entertainment. Clearly people feel that their lives are enriched from participating or spectating. Great. Good for them. The problem I see is a matter of priority. Society as a whole treats watching other people play sports as if it's something as critically important, heck, more important than say, hospitals.
Why is it that so many people who say "society needs to do so-and-so" feel that they are exempt from doing anything themselves? It blows my mind that you see this as irrelevant. It's always somebody else that needs to do it. They apparently don't see themselves as part of society.
Sports get attention because people choose to follow them under their own volitions. If you want mathematics stars in schools to get attention, then why aren't you attending Mathletes contests? Are you attending/watching at least 16 city council meetings a year (same as the number of games in each NFL team's regular season)?
"Don't make it about me personally, it's something everyone else should be doing."
Meanwhile, the very people whose lives you want the sports industries' money redistributed to are generally the ones who are deriving the greatest amount of life enjoyment out of following those very sports.
Sports get attention because people choose to follow them under their own volitions. If you want mathematics stars in schools to get attention, then why aren't you attending Mathletes contests? Are you attending/watching at least 16 city council meetings a year (same as the number of games in each NFL team's regular season)?
"Don't make it about me personally, it's something everyone else should be doing."
Meanwhile, the very people whose lives you want the sports industries' money redistributed to are generally the ones who are deriving the greatest amount of life enjoyment out of following those very sports.
Why would you think that I don't follow my own beliefs?
I never said I want the 'sports industries money redistributed'. That amount of resources shouldn't be devoted to a complete waste of time for society in the first place.
Anyway, I believe people should focus on helping each other survive and thrive, rather than spending billions of dollars on mindless entertainment. The idea that people woold argue with me and pick on me personally over this is nothing new - sports are popular and opposing them is unpopular, which as far as I could tell is the entire topic of this article.
I never said I want the 'sports industries money redistributed'. That amount of resources shouldn't be devoted to a complete waste of time for society in the first place.
Anyway, I believe people should focus on helping each other survive and thrive, rather than spending billions of dollars on mindless entertainment. The idea that people woold argue with me and pick on me personally over this is nothing new - sports are popular and opposing them is unpopular, which as far as I could tell is the entire topic of this article.
People I've met say the exact same about the things I love. Most have, To my face, over and over, systematically.
So this kind of talk isn't just relegated to the "highly educated".
You're right, that hurts, and it takes a big person to not fire back.
So this kind of talk isn't just relegated to the "highly educated".
You're right, that hurts, and it takes a big person to not fire back.
On the other hand, I could not give two shits about sport. If someone wants to take personal offence at this and decided I'm a snob, I'm quite happy about my conclusions of who exactly has the social problem.
Hint, it's not my problem.
Hint, it's not my problem.
While I may agree that it's being snobbish, I would emphatically disagree with your view of it as being a 'problem with your social skills'. In fact, I think it is the very opposite - snobbishness, overt or otherwise, is a form of social signalling, and personal distaste for that form of social signalling does not mean that it shows a lack of social skills (though it may obviously, as mentioned, be problematic for other reasons). Social skills do not merely consist of pleasant components.
You sound like a complete snob.
Disinterest != contempt.
I followed sports (pro & college football) when I had access to a television. I went to college when TVs were expensive and bulky and lost the thread of them. Discovering the college library was also a big time sink.
I didn't pursue them again until I got a 1080p television, some ...25 years later. It's still not the highest priority activity.
But to borrow from Richard Feynman , "why do you care what other people think?" Set your goals and do what you need to do to attain them. Some of the best people I met in school were largely autodiadicts anyway. The vast majority of those you'll met are not people of high value regardless of social markers and educational attainment.
I followed sports (pro & college football) when I had access to a television. I went to college when TVs were expensive and bulky and lost the thread of them. Discovering the college library was also a big time sink.
I didn't pursue them again until I got a 1080p television, some ...25 years later. It's still not the highest priority activity.
But to borrow from Richard Feynman , "why do you care what other people think?" Set your goals and do what you need to do to attain them. Some of the best people I met in school were largely autodiadicts anyway. The vast majority of those you'll met are not people of high value regardless of social markers and educational attainment.
To my ears, this "cultivated disinterest" label comes off as something of a cheap stereotype. Simply put, not everyone who lacks interest in professional sports nurtures a "cultivated distinterest" in the subject, nor are we driven by some need to display this disinterest as some kind of marker of class rank or intellectual superiority. We simply lack interest in the subject, period.
And when pressed on the subject, I never use language that conveys any sense that I think others are stupid or shallow for being interest in professional sports. If anything I just say, kind of sheepishly, "You know, I actually don't follow professional sports", or something to that effect. And surprisingly, this kind of honesty has, itself, sparked interesting conversations with people, on several occasions.
And when pressed on the subject, I never use language that conveys any sense that I think others are stupid or shallow for being interest in professional sports. If anything I just say, kind of sheepishly, "You know, I actually don't follow professional sports", or something to that effect. And surprisingly, this kind of honesty has, itself, sparked interesting conversations with people, on several occasions.
I think what he's referring to is people who are proud of their ignorance, which it doesn't sound like you are doing. You've certainly encountered people who believe saying things like "Oh, I don't even know who Kim Kardashian is" or "I haven't read a book since college" is bragging.
Or the disingenuous "oh, is there a football game this week" - which they are only saying as a response to hearing people talk about the game all week.
Or my favorite "say that in English".
I really enjoy "I'm not into Pokémon".
I know a lot of people who take their lack of interest in sports as a point of pride. I've been in bars where everybody immediately starts cheering after some amazing play, and my table gets up and ironically yells "FOOTBALL!" I still think it's amusing, but there's definitely an element of elitism to it.
I've seen what you're talking about, but when I've seen it, it usually seems more like an acknowledgement of the amusing mild awkwardness inherent in being surrounded by people who are REALLY passionate about something and not being able to partake. I can see it having elitist intent in some cases, but in a lot of cases it's just poking fun at oneself for being so out of touch with whatever all the people around you are into.
> nor are we driven by some need to display this disinterest as some kind of marker of class rank or intellectual superiority.
Not to disagree with you, but I was under the impression that most research on social signaling has shown that it is not a conscious phenomenon.
You don't do X because you think it will signal Y. You just do X, whether because of unconscious social signals you have received or because the information that X might signal Y is contained in the genome rather than in the brain.
Can anyone clarify?
Not to disagree with you, but I was under the impression that most research on social signaling has shown that it is not a conscious phenomenon.
You don't do X because you think it will signal Y. You just do X, whether because of unconscious social signals you have received or because the information that X might signal Y is contained in the genome rather than in the brain.
Can anyone clarify?
I think you'd need some reason to believe people are unconsciously signaling it. The author seems to be quite conscious of his own signaling. Personally I was never into watching sports, even as a little kid when I don't think I was doing much intellectual posturing. Probably it's because my parents didn't make a big deal about it whereas it was a big part of family bonding for other kids.
The reason can be as simple as identifying with others who aren't into sports. People take on the interests and values of the people they identify with, whether they realize it or not.
I had a good reply lined up, but then I noticed there's a decent chance we're related. If only there were some shared cultural event happening this weekend that we could talk about as an introduction...
You hit the nail on the head. I've lived with football fans most of my life and have been exposed to it plenty of times. Even when I try to pay attention to it, I find it so boring that I zone out and begin thinking about other things without even realizing it. I have no problem with people who enjoy football and professional sports in general, but it's just not something I have an interest in.
I feel the same way. I've absolutely no interest in football even after trying a couple of times. I've also lost interest in other sports over time. It may be something to do with growing older and having other priorities.
I was interested in certain sports as a teenager, but grew out of it. I can think of a couple of reasons. Firstly I moved around a bit, to different cities and countries, and parochialism seems very silly. If you don't care which team wins, a lot of interest in sport disappears. Secondly the sports themselves are extremely repetitive. Once you've learned the rules and seen a few games, there's not much more to learn, it's just variations on a theme.
Edit: I'm referring to spectating, not active participation. I'm sure there's a lot more to learn, understand and enjoy if you actually play.
Edit: I'm referring to spectating, not active participation. I'm sure there's a lot more to learn, understand and enjoy if you actually play.
I feel the same way as you, but I think the article is perfectly accurate. A lot of self-styled "academic" "intellectuals" (e.g. humanities professors, etc.) really are that second-handed. i.e., so concerned about their perceived "status" and, in general, how others perceive them, that they'd rather pretend to be what is wanted than simply be an authentic person.
I'm not sure how I feel about this article. On the one hand, it had a weird highbrow tone. It reads a bit like an ivory tower academic discovering what "the poors" are up to. Some choice quotes:
"Albert suggested that sports reflect the go-to topic for small talk and building rapport across class and context"
"Sports are popular because people, in general, find them fun to watch".
No shit! Lots of people like sports. Did you really need to go to a talk at MIT to figure that out?
On the other hand, I applaud the author for challenging the social conventions of the people around him. Disdain for sports is pointless social signalling that is ultimately divisive. Another quote, that I particularly like:
"This ignorance among highly educated people limits our ability to communicate, bond, and build relationships across different segments of society. It limits our ability to engage in conversations and build a common culture that crosses our highly stratified and segmented societies"
Edit: I would also like to add one perspective that is perhaps more appealing to the intellectual crowd: Sports are a magnificent showcase of kinesiology at the highest level. The same people who scoff at football probably also marvel at the latest ATLAS robot from Boston Dynamics, which is a poor analogue of the human machines on display in any high level sporting event. I could give a dozen examples. Anything from hitting a baseball thrown at 90 mph to ice-skating to a running back evading tackles. I can't believe we take this for granted.
Imagine bipedal robots powered by ham sandwiches that have visual/control systems capable of tracking objects thrown through the air and leaping to catch them, all while evading attackers and coordinating with team mates.
"Albert suggested that sports reflect the go-to topic for small talk and building rapport across class and context"
"Sports are popular because people, in general, find them fun to watch".
No shit! Lots of people like sports. Did you really need to go to a talk at MIT to figure that out?
On the other hand, I applaud the author for challenging the social conventions of the people around him. Disdain for sports is pointless social signalling that is ultimately divisive. Another quote, that I particularly like:
"This ignorance among highly educated people limits our ability to communicate, bond, and build relationships across different segments of society. It limits our ability to engage in conversations and build a common culture that crosses our highly stratified and segmented societies"
Edit: I would also like to add one perspective that is perhaps more appealing to the intellectual crowd: Sports are a magnificent showcase of kinesiology at the highest level. The same people who scoff at football probably also marvel at the latest ATLAS robot from Boston Dynamics, which is a poor analogue of the human machines on display in any high level sporting event. I could give a dozen examples. Anything from hitting a baseball thrown at 90 mph to ice-skating to a running back evading tackles. I can't believe we take this for granted.
Imagine bipedal robots powered by ham sandwiches that have visual/control systems capable of tracking objects thrown through the air and leaping to catch them, all while evading attackers and coordinating with team mates.
Disdain for sports is pointless social signalling that is ultimately divisive.
So is participation in sports. People don't dislike sports because they were born that way; they dislike them because they didn't like the effect they had on e.g. their high school or college.
So is participation in sports. People don't dislike sports because they were born that way; they dislike them because they didn't like the effect they had on e.g. their high school or college.
Some people want to cheer for academic bookish stuffiness and boo the low-brow jockiness of field games. If that isn't what sports is all about, then what is it about?
This whole idea of "us versus them" is an integral part of a lot of sports culture. That creation of artificial false dichotomies is exactly what sports is about, and exactly what society needs to avoid.
The question isn't academics versus athletes, it's inclusiveness versus divisiveness (or, worst case, the question of maximum long-term benefit to society). Both academics and athletes are capable of either, but at least in schools, one side is much more prominently divisive than the other.
The question isn't academics versus athletes, it's inclusiveness versus divisiveness (or, worst case, the question of maximum long-term benefit to society). Both academics and athletes are capable of either, but at least in schools, one side is much more prominently divisive than the other.
I'm not sure society needs to avoid it. And even if it did, I'm not sure individual humans can.
Differentiating between things is a core functionality of the brain, and separating people into groups and categories is necessary to identify which decisions are correct or what actions to take in a given scenario. It becomes degenerate when this kind of divisiveness stops being "friendly competition" and starts being a feedback-loop of antagonistic rationalizations.
Even so, it is hard to be inclusive with people who aren't inclined to be inclusive. It's not something that you can achieve with just intent; it requires a community with the right infrastructure. And it is hard enough for individuals to control their own behavior that controlling community behavior is almost always intractable.
I'm not sure that it is inappropriately cynical to think "I'm just going to pick the side I like and criticize the one I don't. If the other side doesn't understand this and value it, then screw 'em."
Differentiating between things is a core functionality of the brain, and separating people into groups and categories is necessary to identify which decisions are correct or what actions to take in a given scenario. It becomes degenerate when this kind of divisiveness stops being "friendly competition" and starts being a feedback-loop of antagonistic rationalizations.
Even so, it is hard to be inclusive with people who aren't inclined to be inclusive. It's not something that you can achieve with just intent; it requires a community with the right infrastructure. And it is hard enough for individuals to control their own behavior that controlling community behavior is almost always intractable.
I'm not sure that it is inappropriately cynical to think "I'm just going to pick the side I like and criticize the one I don't. If the other side doesn't understand this and value it, then screw 'em."
The "weird" tone may just be a result of the author writing in a more familiar language. If the author was already part of an academic subculture, it would make sense that this would show up in the language he is most fluent in.
It can come off as incongruous (if only because we're not used to an academic making an honest attempt to analyze his observations on sport fans, academics, and a common source of friction between the two cultures).
I could easily imagine the other way around - a stereotypical sports guy talking about academic topics in jock lingo - being exaggerated in an SNL skit or something. The way people "code switch" and just use the language of different subgroups is one of those things we're mostly familiar with and accept...even if we can see how it's a weird bit of human behavior. Stuff like that can make for either great offense or great comedy (sometimes both).
For my part, I was always drawn to more geeky/intellectual interests as a kid because I was scrawny and weird so the sports guys weren't welcoming. As I got older, being mostly unfamiliar with pro sports made it awkward when coworkers realized I was the only one who had no idea what they were talking about. I still am not a huge fan of pro sports (if only for the insane amount of hype and greed surrounding them) but I realized a while ago that a lot of my hostility toward "jock stuff" came mostly from insecurity. Nowadays I do enjoy watching football when my home team is playing. I own a couple of team T-shirts and maybe catch a baseball game in the summer or watch a few football games at the bar if the home team is playing. A big part of it was making some friends who were into computers and music and art and reading who also liked pro sports and weren't dicks about my lack of knowledge. As the author says, the social aspect is what makes it enjoyable for a lot of people and when that was bad, my thoughts on sports were negative. When my social interactions around sports became enjoyable, my general thoughts on sports became more positive.
It can come off as incongruous (if only because we're not used to an academic making an honest attempt to analyze his observations on sport fans, academics, and a common source of friction between the two cultures).
I could easily imagine the other way around - a stereotypical sports guy talking about academic topics in jock lingo - being exaggerated in an SNL skit or something. The way people "code switch" and just use the language of different subgroups is one of those things we're mostly familiar with and accept...even if we can see how it's a weird bit of human behavior. Stuff like that can make for either great offense or great comedy (sometimes both).
For my part, I was always drawn to more geeky/intellectual interests as a kid because I was scrawny and weird so the sports guys weren't welcoming. As I got older, being mostly unfamiliar with pro sports made it awkward when coworkers realized I was the only one who had no idea what they were talking about. I still am not a huge fan of pro sports (if only for the insane amount of hype and greed surrounding them) but I realized a while ago that a lot of my hostility toward "jock stuff" came mostly from insecurity. Nowadays I do enjoy watching football when my home team is playing. I own a couple of team T-shirts and maybe catch a baseball game in the summer or watch a few football games at the bar if the home team is playing. A big part of it was making some friends who were into computers and music and art and reading who also liked pro sports and weren't dicks about my lack of knowledge. As the author says, the social aspect is what makes it enjoyable for a lot of people and when that was bad, my thoughts on sports were negative. When my social interactions around sports became enjoyable, my general thoughts on sports became more positive.
Intellectually gifted individuals can be quite adept at rationalizing their behavior and deluding themselves (and drowning others) with logical-sounding word vomit. This is evident as they get lost in the details of their rationalizations, but fail to consider the broader assumptions/principles at work in their justifications.
For example, point number 4:
It’s not all great. Football, like most professional sports, is deeply permeated with advertisements, commercialism, and money.
We see that's really just a statement full of bullshit, because it's likely pretty easy to find counter-examples of things the intellectual individual thinks are great (Apple products?) which are deeply permeated with ads, commercialism, and money.
Intelligence is a highly-fluid "thing", but society tends to view it as book-smart depth in a few micro-niches... i.e. the less something can be understood, the more "intelligent" one appears. And yet that sort of "intelligence" defeats the compounding interest of knowledge, which occurs when we can communicate it to others in an understandable fashion. Even further, a mother who raises her children can be highly intelligent, but she often gets little honor from a society that defines smart as a Physics PhD.
For example, point number 4:
It’s not all great. Football, like most professional sports, is deeply permeated with advertisements, commercialism, and money.
We see that's really just a statement full of bullshit, because it's likely pretty easy to find counter-examples of things the intellectual individual thinks are great (Apple products?) which are deeply permeated with ads, commercialism, and money.
Intelligence is a highly-fluid "thing", but society tends to view it as book-smart depth in a few micro-niches... i.e. the less something can be understood, the more "intelligent" one appears. And yet that sort of "intelligence" defeats the compounding interest of knowledge, which occurs when we can communicate it to others in an understandable fashion. Even further, a mother who raises her children can be highly intelligent, but she often gets little honor from a society that defines smart as a Physics PhD.
> It reads a bit like an ivory tower academic discovering what "the poors" are up to.
"A bit like"? Isn't the piece pretty overtly "How I, ivory tower anti-sports intellectual, realized the error of my ways, converted to the 'working class' ritual of sports fandom, and found that it was useful for one's own social engagement, despite having some worrisome aspects."
I mean, the authors journey into sports starts with hearing a speaker at MIT claim that people who talk about "working class struggle" can't speak to the working class because they avoid sport -- and seeing themself in that critique.
It actually is somewhat impressive for its ability to maintain an attitude of disdain for sport while recognizing the utility of joining the fandom, while at the same time adding new disdain for those who don't play the same game.
"A bit like"? Isn't the piece pretty overtly "How I, ivory tower anti-sports intellectual, realized the error of my ways, converted to the 'working class' ritual of sports fandom, and found that it was useful for one's own social engagement, despite having some worrisome aspects."
I mean, the authors journey into sports starts with hearing a speaker at MIT claim that people who talk about "working class struggle" can't speak to the working class because they avoid sport -- and seeing themself in that critique.
It actually is somewhat impressive for its ability to maintain an attitude of disdain for sport while recognizing the utility of joining the fandom, while at the same time adding new disdain for those who don't play the same game.
An impressive robot is just so much more novel and interesting than a feat of human strength. Not to say sports aren't impressive, or that professional athletes aren't incredibly dedicated and talented, but someone hitting a baseball isn't very interesting.
Do you realize how much time and study catchers put into the abilities of every pitcher, and every opponent that their pitchers face? It's very data based, combined with prodigious amounts of athletics on the part of both the pitcher and hitter. The pitcher is trying to capitalize on the batter's weaknesses without just giving away his plan (you can hit much better if you know a slow curveball to the indise is coming). The batter is trying to watch the pitcher and detect things like late delivery, changes in release points, putting spin on the ball, and so on. Then they are tracking mid time scale things - is the pitcher getting tired, is he losing control, are his pitches drifting to the outside. Or this batter has struck out 3 times now - was that a random walk, is he having trouble with a specific pitch, is he perhaps injured? Then there is the long range stuff - how does this batter fair against left handed pitchers.
As of late baseball has been a pitching game. It's often not high score, but it is a fascinating thing to watch, if you have this context. Now, whether you want to keep all that in your brain is another question, and I mostly choose not to, so in practice it is less interesting to me. But there are endless depths there to plumb.
As of late baseball has been a pitching game. It's often not high score, but it is a fascinating thing to watch, if you have this context. Now, whether you want to keep all that in your brain is another question, and I mostly choose not to, so in practice it is less interesting to me. But there are endless depths there to plumb.
A biological computer estimates the position of an object that's moving much faster than the refresh rate of its visual system using years of training data. Simultaneously it triggers a cascade of actuators, twisting its body so that its hands reach maximum velocity at the same time the object reaches the bat it's holding. It loses sight of the ball, which is following a curved trajectory, while doing this.
It then takes off running at 20mph.
That's fantastically mysterious and incredible to me.
I'm not trying to minimize robotics or Boston Dynamics. It's an amazing field. I just think people under appreciate the movement of the human body.
It then takes off running at 20mph.
That's fantastically mysterious and incredible to me.
I'm not trying to minimize robotics or Boston Dynamics. It's an amazing field. I just think people under appreciate the movement of the human body.
But they're all the same with no progression over time.
Not fascinating to me in the long term.
Not fascinating to me in the long term.
[deleted]
Meh, this is not a problem that needs addressing.
When people say they "don't like sports," what they often mean is that they don't follow any teams.
I played baseball growing up, still play tennis and row. I "understand" the rules of most sports – except cricket but c'mon. I can have a good time drinking a pint with friends and listening to them discuss sports. In fact, my ignorance often leads to great conversations, as they explain some backstory about how the wide receivers played on rival college teams or the history of nation's soccer team or whatever. It's fun. Sports are inherently dramatic, and it's easy to be drawn into an evenly matched contest. Given the right context and group of peers who are passionate about the outcome, pretty much everybody will enjoy watching sports.
However, I just find the whole process of following a team to be a colossal waste of time. All of the time spent reading about drafts and trades and injuries and stats, they add up to hours every week – even without watching any games. I personally would much rather be cooking or reading a novel or playing video games or hiking. Some people would find those things to be a colossal waste of time. That's okay.
There's no reason for us all to be so defensive about what we like and don't like. I like sports, but I choose to spend my free time on other things. That doesn't make my hobbies better or worse than Joe Football's. Just different. End of story.
When people say they "don't like sports," what they often mean is that they don't follow any teams.
I played baseball growing up, still play tennis and row. I "understand" the rules of most sports – except cricket but c'mon. I can have a good time drinking a pint with friends and listening to them discuss sports. In fact, my ignorance often leads to great conversations, as they explain some backstory about how the wide receivers played on rival college teams or the history of nation's soccer team or whatever. It's fun. Sports are inherently dramatic, and it's easy to be drawn into an evenly matched contest. Given the right context and group of peers who are passionate about the outcome, pretty much everybody will enjoy watching sports.
However, I just find the whole process of following a team to be a colossal waste of time. All of the time spent reading about drafts and trades and injuries and stats, they add up to hours every week – even without watching any games. I personally would much rather be cooking or reading a novel or playing video games or hiking. Some people would find those things to be a colossal waste of time. That's okay.
There's no reason for us all to be so defensive about what we like and don't like. I like sports, but I choose to spend my free time on other things. That doesn't make my hobbies better or worse than Joe Football's. Just different. End of story.
Often it just means they don't follow any teams, but not always. I, for instance, don't care for any sports at all. I'm not even interested in learning the rules, unless I play the sport myself. Same goes for some of my friends.
i always found Chomsky's take on sports to be quite interesting...
"Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.
You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm
"Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.
You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm
I think the situation is worse -- people want to look away, they want to be distracted. It's not foisted on them. (I include myself here, for what it's worth)
I totally agree with Chomsky. It is indoctrination. I always found the routine military displays especially troubling. The American version of the communist dictator's military parade.
And then there's the weird government/corporate partnership on stadiums. And the protected monopoly status.
And then there's the weird government/corporate partnership on stadiums. And the protected monopoly status.
I think you're equating all sports with American Football. Which, granted, is more or less what the original article did as well. I totally agree about the military displays, the nationalism and religious overtones that get mixed in with Football in the US. But that's one sport. There are many others, and aside from probably Nascar, none of them come close to Football in those terms.
> I think you're equating all sports with American Football.
The article is titled as about "professional sports", the social effect it discusses is about socially-popular professional sports in general, and in discussing them the specific example used throughout is American football.
It should not be surprised that the discussion of the articles thesis centers, then, around the same things as the article itself. "Sport" in some vague, general sense is not really the subject.
> I totally agree about the military displays, the nationalism and religious overtones that get mixed in with Football in the US. But that's one sport. There are many others, and aside from probably Nascar, none of them come close to Football in those terms.
Major League Baseball's pretty similar to Football in those regards.
The article is titled as about "professional sports", the social effect it discusses is about socially-popular professional sports in general, and in discussing them the specific example used throughout is American football.
It should not be surprised that the discussion of the articles thesis centers, then, around the same things as the article itself. "Sport" in some vague, general sense is not really the subject.
> I totally agree about the military displays, the nationalism and religious overtones that get mixed in with Football in the US. But that's one sport. There are many others, and aside from probably Nascar, none of them come close to Football in those terms.
Major League Baseball's pretty similar to Football in those regards.
I find this view to be highly overly teleological. The idea that there's really a secret nefarious purpose is one of those extraordinary claims that needs extraordinary evidence
Be careful, you are making too much sense! No, but this overly conspiratorial stuff is common among non-philosophers when discussing such matters. It's all about what one can conflate with anything with some mildly plausible excuse.
Your criticism is valid, but something does not need to have been deliberate for those in power to take advantage of it. Sports serve much the same purpose in secular society as rituals do in religion.
Also, the sport calendar can be used to time communications, particularly those w/ a populist message. Natural events are used this way fortuitously all the time (storms, natural disasters, 9/11, etc.)
Also, the sport calendar can be used to time communications, particularly those w/ a populist message. Natural events are used this way fortuitously all the time (storms, natural disasters, 9/11, etc.)
I don't know that he necessarily means that sports were designed with these purposes in mind. Sports/games in general have always been diversions and that's why they're popular.
[deleted]
predictably well put from mr chomsky.
to effect a classic double flashback, fight club style, here's a dose of bread and circus from juvenal from CE 100:
"'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Games!"
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_10.htm
to effect a classic double flashback, fight club style, here's a dose of bread and circus from juvenal from CE 100:
"'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Games!"
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_10.htm
>> I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense.
The thing is though that applies to Odysseus, Hamlet, Charles Foster Kane... Narrative in general. Our investment in any form of entertainment is equally nonsensical.
The thing is though that applies to Odysseus, Hamlet, Charles Foster Kane... Narrative in general. Our investment in any form of entertainment is equally nonsensical.
Funny how Chomskyan approaches to Linguistics and Syntax require their own indoctrination and belief system and "the most exotic information and understanding about all kind of arcane issues".
Meanwhile, statistical approaches continue to win in the real world.
Meanwhile, statistical approaches continue to win in the real world.
I think there's some truth to what you say about Chomskyan linguistics being dogmatic. But linguists aren't really playing the same game as the people in (e.g.) statistical machine translation, so it's hard to say the latter are "winning". Chomskyan linguistics is also just one of the various competing traditions in linguistics.
This position taken by Chomsky is exactly what the article is denouncing, and I think Chomsky comes off as a smug jerk here.
If Chomsky believes cheering for your classmates is stupid, then he must believe that we should be perfectly objective and treat everyone exactly the same. If you're a judge or President, you have an obligation to the public to act that way. But me, I'm glad I have the luxury of showing preference to my friends and family. I care about my neighbors more than people on the other side of the world. And yes, I will root for my home team and cheer when they win.
I don't believe it's irrational or wrong to play favorites this way. And even if it were, it's so fundamental to being human that we could not be any other way. Perhaps we are a jingoistic species.
If Chomsky believes cheering for your classmates is stupid, then he must believe that we should be perfectly objective and treat everyone exactly the same. If you're a judge or President, you have an obligation to the public to act that way. But me, I'm glad I have the luxury of showing preference to my friends and family. I care about my neighbors more than people on the other side of the world. And yes, I will root for my home team and cheer when they win.
I don't believe it's irrational or wrong to play favorites this way. And even if it were, it's so fundamental to being human that we could not be any other way. Perhaps we are a jingoistic species.
I agree that it's completely rational to care more about your neighbours or family than people far away from you, but I don't think that this completely transfers to sports. You might feel good for a short time if your "home team" wins a game, but it really doesn't matter in any sort of concrete way. It won't have any lasting effect on your life.
Your neighbours or family or country succeeding could very well make a real difference in your life. I think those that dislike sports do so not because they reject preference or a sort of tribalism, but because beyond some short-lived feeling of vicarious success, sports are completely meaningless.
Mind you, so is a huge majority of entertainment...
Your neighbours or family or country succeeding could very well make a real difference in your life. I think those that dislike sports do so not because they reject preference or a sort of tribalism, but because beyond some short-lived feeling of vicarious success, sports are completely meaningless.
Mind you, so is a huge majority of entertainment...
We are a tribal species. Teams (and schools) are modern tribes.
Schools, nations, races, religions, you name it, we're just as tribal as apes. At least in sports it's fairly explicit that while I think my tribe is the best, you naturally think your tribe is the best, and that's OK, it doesn't mean either of us are bad people and we can agree to disagree.
[deleted]
In my opinion, most people want to be part of their "team". Where the definition of team is highly dependent on the context. When you're a teenager, you're team is typically your high school. But you can abstract this "team" concept upwards. If two states (in the US) were competing, then you'd support your state. If it was your country competing against another country, you'd support your country. Hypothetically, if aliens attacked earth, it would be quite interesting to watch the earthly team spirit arise and would likely change the perspective of many people and countries. In this hypothetical scenario would Chomsky still not support his "team"? Being part of team high school is bad? But being part of team earth is good?
And he conveniently ignores the uniting factor that supporting a club or team provides. It united a community and gives people a feeling of belonging.
It doesn't have to be one (rational and critical thinking) or the other (supporting a team). I don't understand why so many people on this thread can't see that.
It doesn't have to be one (rational and critical thinking) or the other (supporting a team). I don't understand why so many people on this thread can't see that.
Here is another quote from Chomsky. It makes a lot of the same points, but it is much less hostile towards sports fans:
"Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.
In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere."
Basically, sports fans aren't stupid, they just don't think they can have any effect on anything more important (ex: politics).
http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-m...
"Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.
In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere."
Basically, sports fans aren't stupid, they just don't think they can have any effect on anything more important (ex: politics).
http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-m...
Training for jingoism? You know, I think part of being an intellectual is not only to learn things and develop thinking skills but also deeper thinking skills. I think this is sort overly indulgent scifi novel hyperbole. But it's not just you, this sort of thinking is kind of shockingly common among, I guess, programming minds. I just think the world is more complicated than that.
Chomsky and Superbowl Party: http://www.thebrushback.com/Archives/noamchomsky_full.htm
Perfect article for those on HN who follow pro sports ;)
Perfect article for those on HN who follow pro sports ;)
I've felt for a while that not knowing much about sports has been a huge liability. As in, sitting at lunch with co-workers locked out of the conversation because I didn't know anything.
So, a couple of years ago, I had a sports-fanatic friend of mine sit with me through a few football games and explain everything that was happening. This unlocked my ability to relate to others (well, men). It was nothing short of revelatory.
After a while though, my natural indifference reasserted itself and I never bothered to do what's necessary -- like subscribe to cable -- to stay abreast of things.
As for the article, I would suggest that the cause of sports disinterest might not always be a form of cultural signaling (though I find that plausible.) In my case, it goes back to childhood, where I was terrible at all sports. After a while of getting made fun of, being picked last for teams, etc... I learned that sports were simply not for me.
So, a couple of years ago, I had a sports-fanatic friend of mine sit with me through a few football games and explain everything that was happening. This unlocked my ability to relate to others (well, men). It was nothing short of revelatory.
After a while though, my natural indifference reasserted itself and I never bothered to do what's necessary -- like subscribe to cable -- to stay abreast of things.
As for the article, I would suggest that the cause of sports disinterest might not always be a form of cultural signaling (though I find that plausible.) In my case, it goes back to childhood, where I was terrible at all sports. After a while of getting made fun of, being picked last for teams, etc... I learned that sports were simply not for me.
I was disinterested in all sports up until about 4 years ago when my boss randomly game me tickets to a hockey game. I found out I really like hockey and have been a big fan since.
I think interest in sports is pretty healthy. But like all things, in moderation. But it's not so much about sports specifically, but rather having diverse interests is healthy.
I think interest in sports is pretty healthy. But like all things, in moderation. But it's not so much about sports specifically, but rather having diverse interests is healthy.
I don't follow sports, but I also don't go around professing my ignorance. If someone changes the topic to sports, I still engage with them. I ask questions, and they're usually happy to answer. A couple days ago, someone delighted in telling me the story of Marshawn Lynch. (I had to look up the name, but I did remember his antics with the press.)
Having common ground with more people is not a bad argument for learning about sports. But I do have some qualms with the author's decision.
First, I cannot stress this enough: American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common. The average player lasts 3.5 years in the NFL. Then they are spat out and left to deal with a lifetime of health issues. Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling. Football is bad and people should feel guilty watching it. If you're going to watch a popular sport, watch baseball.
But really, what's so bad about being out of touch with most Americans? Why draw the line at political borders? By population, vastly more people love cricket or soccer than American football. I don't mind being out of touch with sports enthusiasts regardless of their country of origin. If you're like me and you spend most of your time with people who aren't interested in sports, there's no point in learning about football or baseball. You already have common ground. Is that living in a bubble? Yes. I like living in a bubble. Economist Bryan Caplan explains the position better than I can.[1]
1. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu....
Having common ground with more people is not a bad argument for learning about sports. But I do have some qualms with the author's decision.
First, I cannot stress this enough: American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common. The average player lasts 3.5 years in the NFL. Then they are spat out and left to deal with a lifetime of health issues. Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling. Football is bad and people should feel guilty watching it. If you're going to watch a popular sport, watch baseball.
But really, what's so bad about being out of touch with most Americans? Why draw the line at political borders? By population, vastly more people love cricket or soccer than American football. I don't mind being out of touch with sports enthusiasts regardless of their country of origin. If you're like me and you spend most of your time with people who aren't interested in sports, there's no point in learning about football or baseball. You already have common ground. Is that living in a bubble? Yes. I like living in a bubble. Economist Bryan Caplan explains the position better than I can.[1]
1. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu....
> American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common.
In Europe, spectators suffer those while watching football.
In Europe, spectators suffer those while watching football.
> Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling.
I think that duelling should be legal, for that same reason. Likewise, football and boxing should be legal: the participants have chosen to engage in them; why shouldn't the spectators enjoy the spectacle?
I think that duelling should be legal, for that same reason. Likewise, football and boxing should be legal: the participants have chosen to engage in them; why shouldn't the spectators enjoy the spectacle?
Sports are so prevalent that if you're not interested, it must be an affect :)
I can watch some sports for a while (basketball and football), but after a couple hours it gets pretty boring, plus I've probably had some beers so the combination tends to make me sleepy. It was exciting when I was in college and rooting for my team at the stadium and all that, but how people connect with teams outside of such a setting has never really made sense to me. I'm from Pittsburgh, a city that loves their team, but it just doesn't connect with me for whatever reason. I'd prefer if they win, sure. But that's about all.
And there is a lot of new info to keep on top of, every day. It strikes me as somewhat of a serious commitment to be into sports, and though I like sports a bit, that commitment isn't worth it to me. As I said, I can watch a game alright (or really more like half to 3/4 of a game), but knowing which players are good, who's having a good season, who is the new coach, etc, it's just way too much uninteresting information. Like learning times tables again, or something.
I can watch some sports for a while (basketball and football), but after a couple hours it gets pretty boring, plus I've probably had some beers so the combination tends to make me sleepy. It was exciting when I was in college and rooting for my team at the stadium and all that, but how people connect with teams outside of such a setting has never really made sense to me. I'm from Pittsburgh, a city that loves their team, but it just doesn't connect with me for whatever reason. I'd prefer if they win, sure. But that's about all.
And there is a lot of new info to keep on top of, every day. It strikes me as somewhat of a serious commitment to be into sports, and though I like sports a bit, that commitment isn't worth it to me. As I said, I can watch a game alright (or really more like half to 3/4 of a game), but knowing which players are good, who's having a good season, who is the new coach, etc, it's just way too much uninteresting information. Like learning times tables again, or something.
It helps a lot if you have a friend who's really passionate about the sport; you can leech off of their passion until you develop some of your own.
When I started dating the woman who would later be my wife, I would occasionally watch hockey games with her; she is from Detroit and grew up an ardent, passionate fan of the Red Wings. After a few games of her explaining the rules and strategy, telling me about the fantastic teamwork between Datsyuk and Zetterburg, and relating the history of the team with regards to their regional rivals, I got in to it on my own time. We aren't able to watch many Wings games now that we live in California, but we've got tickets to watch them play the Sharks in a couple weeks.
The parent post is pretty spot on; you can really choose how much effort you want to put in to being a sports fan. You don't need to know who's having a good season or which players are the best if you don't want to; even just casually browsing the sports page a couple times a week to see the standings and the outcome of the latest game is enough to be able to hold a conversation about it with somebody else.
When I started dating the woman who would later be my wife, I would occasionally watch hockey games with her; she is from Detroit and grew up an ardent, passionate fan of the Red Wings. After a few games of her explaining the rules and strategy, telling me about the fantastic teamwork between Datsyuk and Zetterburg, and relating the history of the team with regards to their regional rivals, I got in to it on my own time. We aren't able to watch many Wings games now that we live in California, but we've got tickets to watch them play the Sharks in a couple weeks.
The parent post is pretty spot on; you can really choose how much effort you want to put in to being a sports fan. You don't need to know who's having a good season or which players are the best if you don't want to; even just casually browsing the sports page a couple times a week to see the standings and the outcome of the latest game is enough to be able to hold a conversation about it with somebody else.
I think you're underestimating the crashing indifference some of us feel toward all sports. It's not cultivated, and it's not that we haven't tried or been exposed to other's enthusiasms. It's not that we haven't played a bit ourselves, even, at least at beer-league level.
My whole family is pretty nuts about American football, so I grew up surrounded by it and can still appreciate the beauty and complexity of the game, the strategy and execution. But I watch the Superbowl and that's it. I just can't be bothered with anything else.
I used to play soccer with a bunch of Europeans who could happily discuss Champions League play for hours. Never was able to muster up the interest to do more than fake a short conversation.
I followed baseball for long enough to survive a World Series while living in the US, during which time it was impossible to have a conversation with anyone about anything that didn't involve the game. My interest lapsed the moment the last bat was swung. It was just too much work to maintain.
Why do sports leave some of us so utterly flat? I have no idea (although from reading some of the comments here apparently the world is full of people who can tell on the basis of a few short sentences the entirety of a person's motivations, which is a pretty good trick.) But it's the reality. So yeah, you can choose how much effort you want to put into being a sports fan, but for some of us the amount of effort required to engage beyond the most brain-dead superficial level is huge compared to the effort the average fan puts in following their favourite team.
For whatever reason, some of us face a wall of indifference that makes the effort of surmounting it simply not worth it.
[I half expect replies to tell me that "no I really just don't understand how beautiful $GAME is", which is the flip side of that uncanny ability to know everything about a person's motivations.]
My whole family is pretty nuts about American football, so I grew up surrounded by it and can still appreciate the beauty and complexity of the game, the strategy and execution. But I watch the Superbowl and that's it. I just can't be bothered with anything else.
I used to play soccer with a bunch of Europeans who could happily discuss Champions League play for hours. Never was able to muster up the interest to do more than fake a short conversation.
I followed baseball for long enough to survive a World Series while living in the US, during which time it was impossible to have a conversation with anyone about anything that didn't involve the game. My interest lapsed the moment the last bat was swung. It was just too much work to maintain.
Why do sports leave some of us so utterly flat? I have no idea (although from reading some of the comments here apparently the world is full of people who can tell on the basis of a few short sentences the entirety of a person's motivations, which is a pretty good trick.) But it's the reality. So yeah, you can choose how much effort you want to put into being a sports fan, but for some of us the amount of effort required to engage beyond the most brain-dead superficial level is huge compared to the effort the average fan puts in following their favourite team.
For whatever reason, some of us face a wall of indifference that makes the effort of surmounting it simply not worth it.
[I half expect replies to tell me that "no I really just don't understand how beautiful $GAME is", which is the flip side of that uncanny ability to know everything about a person's motivations.]
>But I watch the Superbowl and that's it. I just can't be bothered with anything else.
That's totally fine! If the extent of your emotional commitment to football is "I watch the superbowl and that's it", that's still a passing interest in the sport and the sort of thing the article is encouraging.
The attitude that the article is lamenting is the people who go out of their way to avoid being interested in football, the people who take pride in their lack of interest. The sorts of people who, next Monday, are going to be saying, "Oh, the superbowl was yesterday? I figured I'd just catch the commercials on youtube; that's the only interesting part anyways. I don't even know who was playing." That sort of disinterest is cultivated.
That's totally fine! If the extent of your emotional commitment to football is "I watch the superbowl and that's it", that's still a passing interest in the sport and the sort of thing the article is encouraging.
The attitude that the article is lamenting is the people who go out of their way to avoid being interested in football, the people who take pride in their lack of interest. The sorts of people who, next Monday, are going to be saying, "Oh, the superbowl was yesterday? I figured I'd just catch the commercials on youtube; that's the only interesting part anyways. I don't even know who was playing." That sort of disinterest is cultivated.
Agreed. My girlfriend thought she'd never be into basketball. I asked her to watch a game with me, made a point of talking to her about what was going on, and some of the decisions being made. A few months later, she's as avid a fan as I am.
I have zero interest in baseball, not a huge interest in football, despite being in Seattle. But we find basketball a lot of fun and make the trip down to Portland about once a month or so to see the Trail Blazers play - a team that still tries to live the "Keep Portland weird" ethos.
What's intriguing, too, is that despite her dad's best efforts - he definitely sees himself, at least in his mind, as a counter culture revolutionary who despises professional sport as being "what the mindless drones pay attention to", our step-daughter, a seven year old who alternates between My Little Pony, Frozen, and being a self-avowed pacifist vegetarian, also loves and begs to go to games because of the atmosphere - somewhat made curious by the fact she has near zero interest in watching them on TV, but at the arena she is entirely involved, cheering, chanting, dancing, having a whole bunch of fun.
Which is what it should be about.
I have zero interest in baseball, not a huge interest in football, despite being in Seattle. But we find basketball a lot of fun and make the trip down to Portland about once a month or so to see the Trail Blazers play - a team that still tries to live the "Keep Portland weird" ethos.
What's intriguing, too, is that despite her dad's best efforts - he definitely sees himself, at least in his mind, as a counter culture revolutionary who despises professional sport as being "what the mindless drones pay attention to", our step-daughter, a seven year old who alternates between My Little Pony, Frozen, and being a self-avowed pacifist vegetarian, also loves and begs to go to games because of the atmosphere - somewhat made curious by the fact she has near zero interest in watching them on TV, but at the arena she is entirely involved, cheering, chanting, dancing, having a whole bunch of fun.
Which is what it should be about.
Interestingly, this interaction between my wife and I has gone both ways. The same way she got me into watching hockey, I ended up getting her into watching professional fighting games. She likes to watch Street Fighter because the footsie game is a bit slower, so it's easier for her to track what's going on. After I spent a few tournaments explaining some of the mind games and telling her about the various players and the common matchups, she's ended up getting pretty invested in watching major streams when they're on, and she has her own favourites characters and players that she likes to root for.
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1480/
You can watch sports, or you can participate in the watching of sports. One requires real interest in the event while the other merely requires interest in who's nearby. People are different. I'm into some sports and can't stand others. But I like being social with friends, both F2F and online.
You can watch sports, or you can participate in the watching of sports. One requires real interest in the event while the other merely requires interest in who's nearby. People are different. I'm into some sports and can't stand others. But I like being social with friends, both F2F and online.
I ordinarily dislike when people do this ("obligatory xcd: URL"), but that is today's comic. So it is actually relevant. Today.
There's also the fact that the parent comment went on beyond simply linking the relevant comic. Even being today's comic doesn't make it a useful comment if that's all you say.
At first when I saw this link posted on HN I assumed it was something about today's xkcd. Surprised to see it posted so far down to be honest.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" - Eleanor Roosevelt
Sports, in the context of the article, is 100% people and events.
I don't necessarily agree with the quote, I just wanted to point out that the idea expressed here is the same. I don't think that intellectuals (to use the author's term) are necessarily disinterested in sports in general. However, it makes sense to me that that they would not be interested in news, drama and specific professional athletes and their performances and relationships. In many cases, that's all there is when it comes to using professional sports as a basis for making conversation or building rapport.
Sports, in the context of the article, is 100% people and events.
I don't necessarily agree with the quote, I just wanted to point out that the idea expressed here is the same. I don't think that intellectuals (to use the author's term) are necessarily disinterested in sports in general. However, it makes sense to me that that they would not be interested in news, drama and specific professional athletes and their performances and relationships. In many cases, that's all there is when it comes to using professional sports as a basis for making conversation or building rapport.
Wow. That's a really great quote. It captures my social values perfectly, irrespective of sports, or my telling others what they should do.
Yes, sports are all about immersing yourself in the earnest discussion of trivial minutiae. Maybe that's why intellectuals disdain it. It's a tempest in a TV set.
But sports are also one of the very few venues which are: a) dramatic, b) can be shared with friends, foes, and strangers alike, c) fair, and d) largely unscripted.
Sports are a kind of platonic ideal -- a pure meritocracy: where the cream rises to the top, where talent is rewarded, where justice is done, yet tragedy may strike. In today's heavily commercialized, overproduced, and politicized world, such fields of dreams are all too rare.
Finally and maybe most important, sports play to the need we all have to cheer for for heros and heroics and to bathe in the glamour of their victory.
Maybe the inescapably gladiatorial nature of sports competition also embarrasses the fine arts crowd?
Yes, sports are all about immersing yourself in the earnest discussion of trivial minutiae. Maybe that's why intellectuals disdain it. It's a tempest in a TV set.
But sports are also one of the very few venues which are: a) dramatic, b) can be shared with friends, foes, and strangers alike, c) fair, and d) largely unscripted.
Sports are a kind of platonic ideal -- a pure meritocracy: where the cream rises to the top, where talent is rewarded, where justice is done, yet tragedy may strike. In today's heavily commercialized, overproduced, and politicized world, such fields of dreams are all too rare.
Finally and maybe most important, sports play to the need we all have to cheer for for heros and heroics and to bathe in the glamour of their victory.
Maybe the inescapably gladiatorial nature of sports competition also embarrasses the fine arts crowd?
The "intellectuals" who watch sports are interested in strategy. This encompasses on field strategy, personnel choices, and beyond.
The fact that you ignored (or are ignorant of) this side of sports tells me that you've not actually had much practice "making conversation or building rapport" around sports.
The fact that you ignored (or are ignorant of) this side of sports tells me that you've not actually had much practice "making conversation or building rapport" around sports.
The neat thing about intellectuals criticizing things is, they can say it so well.
Honestly, what does that even matter? Most of what gets posted on HackerNews are people, events, and 100 JavaScript frameworks that all do the same thing, namely allow you to do in a browser what you could do with a computer 25 years ago. So, it's a cute quote but what do with that?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people
What's the value in ideas unless the affect events or impact people? It's a nice pithy quote, but don't assign it any undue deference or respect.
What's the value in ideas unless the affect events or impact people? It's a nice pithy quote, but don't assign it any undue deference or respect.
[deleted]
There seems to be an assumption in this article that the baseline "normal" behavior is to be interested in sports.
Where I grew up (the rural South) sports is huge and the default topic of conversation. I always felt that there was something wrong with me because I wasn't that interested.
Then as an adult I moved to Vietnam, where people are only occasionally interested in football(soccer) and that's pretty much it. By default people don't care about sports. If took soccer fanatic and dropped them here, I think their behavior would be perceived as pretty peculiar.
So to me this article is:
"You should agree my cultural assumptions because that is normal baseline human behavior and if you don't then you are deliberately being a jerk."
Which is pretty silly.
Just like what you like and don't worry about it.
Where I grew up (the rural South) sports is huge and the default topic of conversation. I always felt that there was something wrong with me because I wasn't that interested.
Then as an adult I moved to Vietnam, where people are only occasionally interested in football(soccer) and that's pretty much it. By default people don't care about sports. If took soccer fanatic and dropped them here, I think their behavior would be perceived as pretty peculiar.
So to me this article is:
"You should agree my cultural assumptions because that is normal baseline human behavior and if you don't then you are deliberately being a jerk."
Which is pretty silly.
Just like what you like and don't worry about it.
I don't like the message of this post. I do understand (and see) the cultivated disinterest he's talking about, but I would never suggest you try and make yourself like something for the sole purpose of fitting in, ie cultivating disinterest is bad, but so is cultivating this interest.
If you keep and open mind and follow your passions, you'll eventually stumble on something you share enough with others. My disinterest in football is quite genuine, but I enjoy the World Cup and Euro Cup. I also find it hilarious that intellectuals apparently don't go for Heavy Metal, because I'd fall in his "intellectual" category, but spent several years deeply engrossed in Metal and I enjoy the Nordic and Prog subtypes.
If you keep and open mind and follow your passions, you'll eventually stumble on something you share enough with others. My disinterest in football is quite genuine, but I enjoy the World Cup and Euro Cup. I also find it hilarious that intellectuals apparently don't go for Heavy Metal, because I'd fall in his "intellectual" category, but spent several years deeply engrossed in Metal and I enjoy the Nordic and Prog subtypes.
It's not so much saying you should like something to fit in. It's asking you if you dislike it to not fit in. And if that's the case, then that's elitist.
Snob, elitist, etc... I see a lot of names being thrown around to describe/explain/put down this idea of sports-disdain. Not saying you are, just pointing out that these words are coming up a lot.
At the end of the day, people will like what they want. They will dislike what they want, too. Whether that is because of a valid reason, or whatever silly notion of not wanting to fit in, or anything else is irrelevant.
At the end of the day, people will like what they want. They will dislike what they want, too. Whether that is because of a valid reason, or whatever silly notion of not wanting to fit in, or anything else is irrelevant.
In this context, I am using elitist as a description, not an insult. It's up to you to decide if that bothers you.
The point of the post is that motivation is relevant. Some people don't want to be elitist; it bothers me. If they apply some introspection to their motivations, they may discover this behavior describes them, and they may want to change. What people "want" is not some inherent immutable trait of their humanity. Sometimes what people "want" is a result of cultural expectations.
The point of the post is that motivation is relevant. Some people don't want to be elitist; it bothers me. If they apply some introspection to their motivations, they may discover this behavior describes them, and they may want to change. What people "want" is not some inherent immutable trait of their humanity. Sometimes what people "want" is a result of cultural expectations.
Not liking sports doesn't make you a snob or elitist. Its when a percentage of people who don't like sports put down people who do that these words come into play.
Aye, and that goes both ways. Many normal activities are labelled "intellectual" and actively avoided by people who don't want this label.
In this light, there's no need to single out nerds/intellectuals/whatevers. We can just say that cultivating an active disinterest to isolate yourself from others is generally a bad thing.
In this light, there's no need to single out nerds/intellectuals/whatevers. We can just say that cultivating an active disinterest to isolate yourself from others is generally a bad thing.
>so is cultivating this interest.
How so? Taking part in the things most inherent in your culture is arguably a good thing.
It helps you keep in touch with the rest of the world. It helps you carry on and start up conversations with your peers. It's easier to "break the ice".
It makes you feel more connected to society, which is something that I'm sure most of us sitting behind a computer screen 24/7 certainly could use more of.
How so? Taking part in the things most inherent in your culture is arguably a good thing.
It helps you keep in touch with the rest of the world. It helps you carry on and start up conversations with your peers. It's easier to "break the ice".
It makes you feel more connected to society, which is something that I'm sure most of us sitting behind a computer screen 24/7 certainly could use more of.
>Taking part in the things most inherent in your culture is arguably a good thing.
Like being overweight? Eating fast food? Watching the latest wastes of time on the tubes? Because fuck everything about that. I do as I damn well please and spend my time on things that interest me. If that "alienates" losers, who cares? I have more to offer the average portly dimwitted plebian than they do me.
Like being overweight? Eating fast food? Watching the latest wastes of time on the tubes? Because fuck everything about that. I do as I damn well please and spend my time on things that interest me. If that "alienates" losers, who cares? I have more to offer the average portly dimwitted plebian than they do me.
Even if you feel that deep disconnect with the society?
I'm not sure how to describe that feeling precisely - but to give you an example: most people seem to like/watch soap operas, while I actively avoid them and prefer to watch sci-fi, which is shunned by general population. And the reason is, sci-fi series have a point. There's some reason for things, some grander goal, etc., whereas what I see in soap operas are random people making dramas around love, family and money. This, so called normal life, feels so empty and pointless.
I'm not aiming to insult anyone here - what I'm saying is that I just don't grok "normal life". While I have enough empathy and perceptivity to be able to understand the life priorities of an average Joe (in my circles I'm the go-to guy if there's a conflict to fix or someone to cheer up), I don't feel them. I do feel disconnected from society, and honestly, I'm fine with that.
I'm not sure how to describe that feeling precisely - but to give you an example: most people seem to like/watch soap operas, while I actively avoid them and prefer to watch sci-fi, which is shunned by general population. And the reason is, sci-fi series have a point. There's some reason for things, some grander goal, etc., whereas what I see in soap operas are random people making dramas around love, family and money. This, so called normal life, feels so empty and pointless.
I'm not aiming to insult anyone here - what I'm saying is that I just don't grok "normal life". While I have enough empathy and perceptivity to be able to understand the life priorities of an average Joe (in my circles I'm the go-to guy if there's a conflict to fix or someone to cheer up), I don't feel them. I do feel disconnected from society, and honestly, I'm fine with that.
> How so? Taking part in the things most inherent in your culture is arguably a good thing.
Is it really? I'm not a Christian but that would be an easy way for me to have something in common with most of America.
And the value of "it's good to go with the flow" isn't arguably good: http://mic.com/articles/92479/psychologists-have-uncovered-a...
Is it really? I'm not a Christian but that would be an easy way for me to have something in common with most of America.
And the value of "it's good to go with the flow" isn't arguably good: http://mic.com/articles/92479/psychologists-have-uncovered-a...
I also find it hilarious that intellectuals apparently don't go for Heavy Metal, because I'd fall in his "intellectual" category, but spent several years deeply engrossed in Metal and I enjoy the Nordic and Prog subtypes
In recent years there has been a swell in the popularity of metal, but there seems to be a cultural divide between certain styles despite sharing the moniker of "Metal". It's less a matter of the size of the fanbase and has more to do with a difference in sound/style.
Think about rock played on the radio vs indie rock. There is some crossover but not a large amount. Fans of Nickelback don't overlap with fans of The Walkmen. In much the same way someone who listens to Def Leppard is unlikely to also listen to Opeth or Sunn O))).
In recent years there has been a swell in the popularity of metal, but there seems to be a cultural divide between certain styles despite sharing the moniker of "Metal". It's less a matter of the size of the fanbase and has more to do with a difference in sound/style.
Think about rock played on the radio vs indie rock. There is some crossover but not a large amount. Fans of Nickelback don't overlap with fans of The Walkmen. In much the same way someone who listens to Def Leppard is unlikely to also listen to Opeth or Sunn O))).
> I also find it hilarious that intellectuals apparently don't go for Heavy Metal
The "Anything But Heavy Metal" paper is based on data from 1993.
The "Anything But Heavy Metal" paper is based on data from 1993.
Cognitive dissonance: the phrase "cultivated disinterest" precedes the sentence "With a little effort, getting into sports is easy."
I'm not saying that looking down on people for their interests isn't small-minded or awful. But I definitely disagree with the idea that you have to cultivate a lack of interest in a topic.
Also, consider this instead: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case...
As a first-generation American, the fact that you're more likely to pay for college with a sports scholarship than an academic one seems completely insane to me.
I'm not saying that looking down on people for their interests isn't small-minded or awful. But I definitely disagree with the idea that you have to cultivate a lack of interest in a topic.
Also, consider this instead: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case...
As a first-generation American, the fact that you're more likely to pay for college with a sports scholarship than an academic one seems completely insane to me.
I think the problem that many geeks have with sports is the tribalism and the blind devotion. We have a lower tolerance for religious fanaticism, even barring the distro and editor wars. "Your" team won? Really? In what sense are they your team? Are you the coach? Are you a player? Or is it just because your parents were fans, or you grew up near them, or they won last year?
When programmers engage in these kind of religious wars about their languages or text editors (other than in a tongue-in-cheek way) they are considered rude and antisocial neckbeards. But somehow it's rude or antisocial to not get behind this massive time, energy, and money sink that makes a few people fabulously wealthy?
When programmers engage in these kind of religious wars about their languages or text editors (other than in a tongue-in-cheek way) they are considered rude and antisocial neckbeards. But somehow it's rude or antisocial to not get behind this massive time, energy, and money sink that makes a few people fabulously wealthy?
Exactly my problem with it. I can't understand truly serious fandom for a pro team, or even for college teams since they're recruited specifically for the sport much the same way pro teams are.
I could understand it if it were tongue-in-cheek, as you write, just for fun's sake, but it's usually not, as best I can tell. Many of these fans are quite serious. They'll get no-joking pissed off at people over this stuff. They'll really initially dislike anyone they meet from $rivalCity. It's crazy.
Being a fan of a truly local team makes sense to me. A pro team? Not in a "ha-ha we're all in on the joke isn't this fun" sort of way? Mind boggling.
I could understand it if it were tongue-in-cheek, as you write, just for fun's sake, but it's usually not, as best I can tell. Many of these fans are quite serious. They'll get no-joking pissed off at people over this stuff. They'll really initially dislike anyone they meet from $rivalCity. It's crazy.
Being a fan of a truly local team makes sense to me. A pro team? Not in a "ha-ha we're all in on the joke isn't this fun" sort of way? Mind boggling.
People tend to view football as a bunch of dumb lugs pushing each other around, but theres crazy amounts of raw physical strength, finesse, and smarts involved. Each play might involve linemen pushing defenders one way or another to mislead them just long enough to let the ball carrier run through. Watching a great run play unfold is truly amazing, especially at the professional level where the players are basically freaks of nature/superhuman.
Then theres the Odell Beckham catch from earlier this year which is just an insane feat of athleticism: http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuf...
2 years ago I thought football was stupid. Then I started actually watching it and realized theres a lot more to it than I gave it credit for. Now I highly anticipate the start of each season.
Then theres the Odell Beckham catch from earlier this year which is just an insane feat of athleticism: http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuf...
2 years ago I thought football was stupid. Then I started actually watching it and realized theres a lot more to it than I gave it credit for. Now I highly anticipate the start of each season.
I think you might be onto something. I still find sport boring, though I recall my interest in soccer increasing when I was learning things about game strategies. Maybe simply some of us derive pleasure from the aspects that are non-obvious first time you watch a match on TV.
I would recommend Inverting the Pyramid, it is a fascinating journey through the history of footie tactics.
Also, often it's difficult to gauge what's happening in a football match from watching on TV. Going to a game allows you a clearer view of how the match is progressing.
However, after watching enough matches, you can pretty soon see patterns and tactics and styles of each team, and it gets pretty fascinating.
And then of course there's the ability of the players to dazzle individually, either via great passing or with tricks or great tackles or an outstanding save.
Also, often it's difficult to gauge what's happening in a football match from watching on TV. Going to a game allows you a clearer view of how the match is progressing.
However, after watching enough matches, you can pretty soon see patterns and tactics and styles of each team, and it gets pretty fascinating.
And then of course there's the ability of the players to dazzle individually, either via great passing or with tricks or great tackles or an outstanding save.
I find that unless you've played football, it's one of those sports where it can be kind of hard to recognize great play at the line and other positions that aren't featured as heavily as the QB/RB/WR's. The truth is though that at that level there is always 100x more stuff going on than you could possibly imagine; how far someone is leaning forward, if their right foot is slightly ahead of their left, where their center of gravity is relative to their normal stance, what moves were tried in previous situations and how will that affect what they try now given what I think I/we am/are showing? When I played sports at a high level, I always regarded my ability to think quickly and break down situations further than my competition in the moment as to what made me effective. There's a fair amount of slower freak athletes in the NFL that don't need to win the mental battles as much because they are just so much better physically and nothing can counter-act that, but there's also a ton of really smart guys studying their ass off for that slight edge and beating the bigger, stronger, faster with it.
Then there's guys who do both like JJ Watt
Then there's guys who do both like JJ Watt
I won't deny that there's a cultural aspect but I've never been into team sports for the same reason I'm not into religion. When I was a kid I realized that thinking your home team is better than everyone else's is something that happens just because of where you are. It's the reason why people believe that Jesus is better than Buddha or Mohammed also, or any other ordering of those three.
Teams sports amplify and dignify an "us versus them" dynamic. I think that part of us is one of the most problematic aspects of our nature.
Teams sports amplify and dignify an "us versus them" dynamic. I think that part of us is one of the most problematic aspects of our nature.
The other side of that coin is to realize that who you are, where you came from, what you believe often (but not always especially in the last case) is something you have no control over.
Sports is the perfect example of this in that you can and should take great pride and joy in everything that makes you, you, but also realize that there's someone on the other side of the TV screen that has the same reasons for taking pride and loving who they are.
If you can both do that and appreciate the other for that, and not hate them because of it, then you've got it right.
Sports is the perfect example of this in that you can and should take great pride and joy in everything that makes you, you, but also realize that there's someone on the other side of the TV screen that has the same reasons for taking pride and loving who they are.
If you can both do that and appreciate the other for that, and not hate them because of it, then you've got it right.
So does your reasoning break down when you have people that like sports teams for reasons other than locality?
Not at all. Your passion for something is obviously not tied down to locality.
The whole discussion here is about intellectuals not liking sports but of all these supposed intellectuals here in not seeing a lot of intellectual reasoning. Rooting for a team is not the same as believing the universe is actually based on some particular religion, I don't think we can equivocate the two at all.
They come from the same sociological root: in-group/out-group dynamics. I don't know how much more intellectual you want to get.
I really enjoyed reading this.
I had a relatively blue collar american upbringing, but more or less since the day I left for college I've been predominately surrounded by people from white collar lifestyles, and this article really resonated with me.
As illustrated in the article, the difference between the cab driver and the highly educated professional taking the cab is not as great as the latter would often like you to believe it is. Life is a lot easier when you stop pretending that things like sports or certain types of music are "below you".
I had a relatively blue collar american upbringing, but more or less since the day I left for college I've been predominately surrounded by people from white collar lifestyles, and this article really resonated with me.
As illustrated in the article, the difference between the cab driver and the highly educated professional taking the cab is not as great as the latter would often like you to believe it is. Life is a lot easier when you stop pretending that things like sports or certain types of music are "below you".
(American here) I'm not sure why we lionize "the common man" so much in the US. The entire subtext of the article is that (1) we should have a shared culture, (2) such a "shared national culture" should reflect the taste and values of the "middle class" and that (3) people of taste/affluence/etc. should make an effort to reach out to others in the name of "connection" or "bonding" or something else.
I freely admit not being a "middle-class" American. From my cushy software job on the 11th floor in SF, I really don't have any idea what it's like to earn minimum wage, be a single parent, go to a country music concert, or eat at McDonald's. But I don't think any of this makes me "better" than anyone else, and I still treat people with respect, dignity, and compassion -- I just don't feel the sense of guilt or need to conform, that this article seems to espouse.
I fight with my dad about this all the time, who works in a factory in Illinois, and loves reminding me how out-of-touch I am, even as he asks me what I think of Chicago sports, even though (1) I don't live in Illinois and (2) I don't like sports. ;)
I freely admit not being a "middle-class" American. From my cushy software job on the 11th floor in SF, I really don't have any idea what it's like to earn minimum wage, be a single parent, go to a country music concert, or eat at McDonald's. But I don't think any of this makes me "better" than anyone else, and I still treat people with respect, dignity, and compassion -- I just don't feel the sense of guilt or need to conform, that this article seems to espouse.
I fight with my dad about this all the time, who works in a factory in Illinois, and loves reminding me how out-of-touch I am, even as he asks me what I think of Chicago sports, even though (1) I don't live in Illinois and (2) I don't like sports. ;)
> Several years ago, I was at a talk by Michael Albert at MIT where he chastised American intellectuals for what he claimed was cultivated disdain of professional sports.
Is that a thing? I've certainly never noticed it from the outside looking in on American intellectualism, or from my more direct experience with educated acquaintances.
My own take is that I enjoy athletic excellence, but disdain the laughably irrational fandom that almost always overwhelms any gathering or discussion involving major televised sports. When there is a controversial judgement made by referees, why is there such a strong correlation because the team you support and the way you think the call should have gone? Why is it always the team you support that the announcers and referees are biased against? It's just so inane and boring that I have zero interest participating in it.
Is that a thing? I've certainly never noticed it from the outside looking in on American intellectualism, or from my more direct experience with educated acquaintances.
My own take is that I enjoy athletic excellence, but disdain the laughably irrational fandom that almost always overwhelms any gathering or discussion involving major televised sports. When there is a controversial judgement made by referees, why is there such a strong correlation because the team you support and the way you think the call should have gone? Why is it always the team you support that the announcers and referees are biased against? It's just so inane and boring that I have zero interest participating in it.
Indeed. My dislike for sports is twofold - for one, I suck at it (wearing glassess at the age of 10 didn't help in becoming a good soccer player, especially goalkeeper), and I find it boring. Though I'm aware this is something easily changed when one starts playing more.
But the second issue I have is an issue with the culture around professional sport, which is exactly as you described. It highlights the worst aspects of humans - extreme irrationality and willingness to go to a conflict over a completely arbitrary things. I strive to avoid participating in that.
But the second issue I have is an issue with the culture around professional sport, which is exactly as you described. It highlights the worst aspects of humans - extreme irrationality and willingness to go to a conflict over a completely arbitrary things. I strive to avoid participating in that.
tl;dr everybody likes sports, and if you don't like sports than you're weird and might not really be human. Been hearing that since high school. Am sick of it.
I literally can't be arsed to give a shit about sports. I know about football and baseball and can understand most sports-related metaphors, but I really don't have the energy to invest in knowing what the Patriots are doing. (Although I followed the Deflategate scandal with some amusement; where I live the Patriots are gods among men and I confess it's a bit nice to see their reputation, er, deflated.)
So when I need to talk to "ordinary people", I fall back on other pop-culture referents, usually music and movies. Even trashy, mass market music and movies I can get into. Discussing Pokémon was once even a useful ice breaker -- in Japan.
I literally can't be arsed to give a shit about sports. I know about football and baseball and can understand most sports-related metaphors, but I really don't have the energy to invest in knowing what the Patriots are doing. (Although I followed the Deflategate scandal with some amusement; where I live the Patriots are gods among men and I confess it's a bit nice to see their reputation, er, deflated.)
So when I need to talk to "ordinary people", I fall back on other pop-culture referents, usually music and movies. Even trashy, mass market music and movies I can get into. Discussing Pokémon was once even a useful ice breaker -- in Japan.
>tl;dr everybody likes sports, and if you don't like sports than you're weird and might not really be human
That is absolutely NOT what the article states. The articles argument is basically "If you don't like sports, you might be condescending and exclusionary about it. Sports are a near universal conversation topic. If you try getting into them just for the social benefit, you might find you actually like them."
That is absolutely NOT what the article states. The articles argument is basically "If you don't like sports, you might be condescending and exclusionary about it. Sports are a near universal conversation topic. If you try getting into them just for the social benefit, you might find you actually like them."
In summary, you should try liking things that a lot of other people like because you might like them yourself and it will help you make conversation with those that also like them.
My father has been a sales guy for a long time, and he got into playing golf for this reason. He never liked watching sports, which if you're in sales is a bit of a handicap. He doesn't even know the rules of a football game. So the golf gave him something in that space to talk with others about, without having to keep on top of sports news.
Plus it's OK if you suck at golf, everyone you're playing with sucks too. And if they don't suck, you make them look even better. And you get to walk around on a (usually) nicely manicured bit of grass on a (hopefully) sunny day.
Plus it's OK if you suck at golf, everyone you're playing with sucks too. And if they don't suck, you make them look even better. And you get to walk around on a (usually) nicely manicured bit of grass on a (hopefully) sunny day.
I'm not sure how this works.
"Hey, who's your pick in the superbowl?" "I like to golf!"
"Hey, who's your pick in the superbowl?" "I like to golf!"
"Hey, who's your pick in the superbowl?"
"I'm actually more of a golf guy, myself."
"Oh really? What's your favorite club?"
"I love my MegaPutt 20x6 Owninator"
"Oh yeah that's a classic! The 20x6 line has really turned MegaPutt around in recent years. Myself, I can't get enough of anything SportStick comes up with, I got walls of their clubs at home."
The idea's that a conversation gets redirected, not just stopped outright like it would with a reply of "I don't watch sports."
DISCLAIMER: I don't know how golf works beyond what Wii Golf taught me, and that was years ago.
"I'm actually more of a golf guy, myself."
"Oh really? What's your favorite club?"
"I love my MegaPutt 20x6 Owninator"
"Oh yeah that's a classic! The 20x6 line has really turned MegaPutt around in recent years. Myself, I can't get enough of anything SportStick comes up with, I got walls of their clubs at home."
The idea's that a conversation gets redirected, not just stopped outright like it would with a reply of "I don't watch sports."
DISCLAIMER: I don't know how golf works beyond what Wii Golf taught me, and that was years ago.
In a world of pedants it wouldn't but the same way short genre fiction and multi volume biographies get lumped together in "reading" any sport is enough to give you a couple of sports related conversational gambits.
I worked in a bar for a long time. I love playing basketball, and I'm the best pool player in my area (and the bar was full of pool players).
That never sufficed for knowing about football. People want to talk football.
They like talking pool with me too, and it's not like I was cast out of the social circle over it--but most sports conversations, in my experience, start out very specifically.
"Who you like in the SEC this year?"
"You been watching this cheating stuff with Belichick?"
Don't know who Belichick is? You're not going to fudge a conversation, most likely.
That never sufficed for knowing about football. People want to talk football.
They like talking pool with me too, and it's not like I was cast out of the social circle over it--but most sports conversations, in my experience, start out very specifically.
"Who you like in the SEC this year?"
"You been watching this cheating stuff with Belichick?"
Don't know who Belichick is? You're not going to fudge a conversation, most likely.
I've always been a football fan, but never cared too much for baseball, basketball, or hockey (probably because the season has too many games and it's hard to maintain interest). When I was doing construction sales, I made sure to scan the sports page every morning to ensure I had a few tidbits to throw out about every sport. Worked like a charm, especially in construction.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Sounds awfully like 'You should do what everyone else is doing otherwise you'll seem weird and different.'
I don't like nor have an interest in sports, I never have. I'm not going to waste my free time doing something I don't like trying to fit in.
I don't like nor have an interest in sports, I never have. I'm not going to waste my free time doing something I don't like trying to fit in.
I would say a cultivated disinterest is not really a disinterest.
At one point in my life I had access to a TV transmitter and an input to the head end of a cable system so I did some "Captain Midnight" things and I learned very quickly that you don't mess with people's sports any more than you mess with an animal's food.
Every so often I put new batteries in my TV-B-Gone and my experience with that is that people rarely care (and might even cheer) if you turn off CNN, the Weather Channel, CNBC, the Cartoon Network or even ESPN Sports Center but it is part of my personal code that I will never turn off a game.
Rational or not, sports mean a lot to people and you've got to respect that. Personally I don't seek out a lot of pro sports but I watch the Superbowl every year and I am definitely excited to see the Pats in it. When I am visiting friends or out and about I definitely enjoy watching a game.
At one point in my life I had access to a TV transmitter and an input to the head end of a cable system so I did some "Captain Midnight" things and I learned very quickly that you don't mess with people's sports any more than you mess with an animal's food.
Every so often I put new batteries in my TV-B-Gone and my experience with that is that people rarely care (and might even cheer) if you turn off CNN, the Weather Channel, CNBC, the Cartoon Network or even ESPN Sports Center but it is part of my personal code that I will never turn off a game.
Rational or not, sports mean a lot to people and you've got to respect that. Personally I don't seek out a lot of pro sports but I watch the Superbowl every year and I am definitely excited to see the Pats in it. When I am visiting friends or out and about I definitely enjoy watching a game.
I played sports in school, and have no problem understanding them. But watching sports doesn't interest me.
This doesn't seem to cause me problems. I can talk to working class people about other topics easily. I also have no reason to go around bashing sports, so this helps I'm sure.
One thing I've noticed is that it does block me from being close friends with certain men. Because their favorite leisure activity is watching a lot of sports with friends. That's far too high a commitment for me since I truly dislike watching sports on TV.
This doesn't seem to cause me problems. I can talk to working class people about other topics easily. I also have no reason to go around bashing sports, so this helps I'm sure.
One thing I've noticed is that it does block me from being close friends with certain men. Because their favorite leisure activity is watching a lot of sports with friends. That's far too high a commitment for me since I truly dislike watching sports on TV.
This matches my experience as well. I still enjoy playing certain sports, but watching them, especially on TV, bores me to tears. It always has.
It has certainly affected bonding with other men as well.
It has certainly affected bonding with other men as well.
Same experience here. I've rotated through a few number of personal sports into adult land though. That really helps because you'll find others that similarly enjoy what you're doing and don't care for watching sports either. Good exercise too. Stuff like cycling and rock climbing are particularly good cause it makes sense to go on road trips.
I have no opinion on whether you should become a fan of professional sports; by all means do if you want.
I do, however, have an opinion on which one if so. Supporting American football, which causes irreversible brain damage in 100% of players [1] [2], is very much not okay. Maiming and crippling people for entertainment is a moral atrocity, and shame on the author for condoning it.
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/what-i-saw-as-an-n...
I do, however, have an opinion on which one if so. Supporting American football, which causes irreversible brain damage in 100% of players [1] [2], is very much not okay. Maiming and crippling people for entertainment is a moral atrocity, and shame on the author for condoning it.
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/what-i-saw-as-an-n...
You know, growing up I absolutely loathed sports. I didn't understand them (we never watched them in my house), and sports-lovers never explained them; I still remember my gym 'teacher' yelling about 'first and ten' when we had to play flag football, and never actually explaining what it meant. I wasn't any good at them, due at least in part to my bad eyes. In retrospect, I suspect that I also disliked them, whether played or watched, because they were a social situation and I wasn't terribly good at social situations.
In retrospect, I do kind of wish that I'd gotten into them, because they are a bonding experience for so many, and they do provide the grounds for a somewhat better level of small talk than idle chit-chat about the weather. And they certainly can be enjoyable to play.
But as it is, I just don't emotionally get it. Watching sports is boring; it simply doesn't connect. Why should I care if a group of millionaires from my town are running around on some grass with a group of millionaires from your town? Why should I be happy that my taxes are higher in order to raise money for buildings for those same millionaires? Why would I want to spend hours a week and hundreds of dollars watching rich people exercise, talking about rich people exercising and thinking about rich people exercising?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Part of me wishes it did; obviously I am unlike most people. But part of me is glad, too. In some ways, I feel like the little boy in the The Emperor's New Clothes; in others I feel like I'm blind.
As an aside, I thought this quote was just hilarious:
> The machoness and absence of women in the highest levels of most professional sports bothers[sic] me deeply.
I really wonder how one can have working eyes, possess a functioning brain and have come to adulthood and still be surprised that in almost any physical competition the absolute best competitors will be male. It takes a pretty sincere dedication to being disconnected from reality to manage that. It'd be like saying, 'avian over-representation and the absence of fish from the air bother me deeply.'
In retrospect, I do kind of wish that I'd gotten into them, because they are a bonding experience for so many, and they do provide the grounds for a somewhat better level of small talk than idle chit-chat about the weather. And they certainly can be enjoyable to play.
But as it is, I just don't emotionally get it. Watching sports is boring; it simply doesn't connect. Why should I care if a group of millionaires from my town are running around on some grass with a group of millionaires from your town? Why should I be happy that my taxes are higher in order to raise money for buildings for those same millionaires? Why would I want to spend hours a week and hundreds of dollars watching rich people exercise, talking about rich people exercising and thinking about rich people exercising?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Part of me wishes it did; obviously I am unlike most people. But part of me is glad, too. In some ways, I feel like the little boy in the The Emperor's New Clothes; in others I feel like I'm blind.
As an aside, I thought this quote was just hilarious:
> The machoness and absence of women in the highest levels of most professional sports bothers[sic] me deeply.
I really wonder how one can have working eyes, possess a functioning brain and have come to adulthood and still be surprised that in almost any physical competition the absolute best competitors will be male. It takes a pretty sincere dedication to being disconnected from reality to manage that. It'd be like saying, 'avian over-representation and the absence of fish from the air bother me deeply.'
There are several reasons why I dislike sports.
Professional sports are expensive and inefficient forms of entertainment. What is your cost (and opportunity cost) per hour for sports? Compared to films, books, video games, or board games you are burning money/time on a completely passive experience. When was the last time you learned something about yourself or others while watching a sporting event? Do they cause you to think at all?
Sports create an "us VS them" mentality that creates division. I much prefer following space exploration in which the opponent is objective based and nature itself.
Live events are used as delivery mechanisms for the marketing of inferior products like fast food restaurants, poor quality beers, fashion brands, processed foods, etc. The mentality that "I must watch it live" is constantly reenforced, requiring consumption of marketing. The phenomenon of the sports bar further encourages consumption of unhealthy food and poor quality beer (leading to drinking and driving).
For those reasons I no longer watch any sporting events. Now I watch eSports on Twitch to get my dose of live entertainment.
Professional sports are expensive and inefficient forms of entertainment. What is your cost (and opportunity cost) per hour for sports? Compared to films, books, video games, or board games you are burning money/time on a completely passive experience. When was the last time you learned something about yourself or others while watching a sporting event? Do they cause you to think at all?
Sports create an "us VS them" mentality that creates division. I much prefer following space exploration in which the opponent is objective based and nature itself.
Live events are used as delivery mechanisms for the marketing of inferior products like fast food restaurants, poor quality beers, fashion brands, processed foods, etc. The mentality that "I must watch it live" is constantly reenforced, requiring consumption of marketing. The phenomenon of the sports bar further encourages consumption of unhealthy food and poor quality beer (leading to drinking and driving).
For those reasons I no longer watch any sporting events. Now I watch eSports on Twitch to get my dose of live entertainment.
What eSport are you watching where it is NOT "us VS them"? Starcraft is a 1v1 game. LoL is a 5v5 game. Not sure what other eSports there are, but the major ones are always pitting humans against eachother...
us. them. plural words. the viewer and player being part of the same group.
You're badly misinterpreting that line. It's about the fans, not whether the players compete (obviously the players compete). "us vs them" is when you hear a fan say a phrase like "we won".
It's certainly possible to get wrapped up in a fandom in eSports, but from my limited perspective it's much less common.
You're badly misinterpreting that line. It's about the fans, not whether the players compete (obviously the players compete). "us vs them" is when you hear a fan say a phrase like "we won".
It's certainly possible to get wrapped up in a fandom in eSports, but from my limited perspective it's much less common.
- You can watch sports at home, on a TV, through your OTA antennae, costing you nothing
- When was the last time you learned something about yourself or others while watching an eSports event? Do they cause you to think at all?
- When was the last time you learned something about yourself or others while watching an eSports event? Do they cause you to think at all?
Except for the games that are only carried on cable networks like ESPN, Fox Sports, NFL network etc. which you MUST watch if you are a true fan.
The hosts of many Twitch channels talk about their philosophies on life and interact directly with their fans to have meaningful discussions.
The hosts of many Twitch channels talk about their philosophies on life and interact directly with their fans to have meaningful discussions.
I'm curious, does supposed high quality beer not lead to drinking and driving? As far as the us vs then situation, what do you call board games? Do you play board ganes that do not allow competition, same eSports? Why do you think you can learn more about people from video games than sports? I'm not sure, this just seems like a fancy way of saying, in an elitist way, that you don't get into sports because other people do.
It does, but the producers of that product do not encourage the practice with (often sexually) manipulative television marketing.
There are many excellent cooperative board games such as Pandemic and Forbidden Island. Video games like Minecraft and Portal can be played cooperatively as well.
I am not into professional sports because they are inferior to other forms of entertainment. I have watched and understand pretty much every type of sport. My favorite is UFC. I also enjoy hockey but I would rather play NHL 94 than watch it on TV or in person.
Another thing I don't like is how little innovation there is in professional sports. It seems like I could watch an hour of highlights at the end of the year and see anything unique that might have happened. These games have been played for decades. With Twitch there are constantly new games with new mechanics and strategies and it's exciting to watch people figure out optimal play methods and new techniques.
There are many excellent cooperative board games such as Pandemic and Forbidden Island. Video games like Minecraft and Portal can be played cooperatively as well.
I am not into professional sports because they are inferior to other forms of entertainment. I have watched and understand pretty much every type of sport. My favorite is UFC. I also enjoy hockey but I would rather play NHL 94 than watch it on TV or in person.
Another thing I don't like is how little innovation there is in professional sports. It seems like I could watch an hour of highlights at the end of the year and see anything unique that might have happened. These games have been played for decades. With Twitch there are constantly new games with new mechanics and strategies and it's exciting to watch people figure out optimal play methods and new techniques.
Anyone else wish people would stick with "disinterested" == "impartial" rather than "disinterested" == "uninterested"? Yeah, I know, language changes, so deal. I guess so, but is there no value in fighting the tide of sloppiness? Where do you draw the line? Probably way too late on this one.
I assure you, I did not need to cultivate my disinterest in professional sports.
Also, any disdain I have for the subject is entirely centered around the fans. Sports fans have a tendency to assume that everyone is a sports fan, and act accordingly. I don't shame anyone for not liking board games, don't shame me for not caring about whatever latest playoff is going on.
Also, when delays in my commute can be directly attributable to a specific event, you can bet I'm going to develop negative feelings towards it.
Also, any disdain I have for the subject is entirely centered around the fans. Sports fans have a tendency to assume that everyone is a sports fan, and act accordingly. I don't shame anyone for not liking board games, don't shame me for not caring about whatever latest playoff is going on.
Also, when delays in my commute can be directly attributable to a specific event, you can bet I'm going to develop negative feelings towards it.
I am always puzzled at how "high brow" people scoff at sports. There is so much to learn from athletes. MJ, Kobe, Tom Brady -- these guys have all the skill in the world, but more impressive than their skill is their incredible work ethic. I feel there's a lot to learn here.
For example, one of Kobe's conditioning trainer's had this to say:
"When I arrived and opened the room to the main practice floor I saw Kobe. Alone. He was drenched in sweat as if he had just taken a swim. It wasn’t even 5AM.
We did some conditioning work for the next hour and fifteen minutes. Then we entered the weight room, where he would do a multitude of strength training exercises for the next 45 minutes. After that we parted ways and he went back to the practice floor to shoot. I went back to the hotel and crashed. Wow."
Later on, around 11AM, the trainer sees Kobe on the court, practicing with the USA Olympic Squad, and has this conversation:
"So when did you finish?"
"Finish what?"
"Getting your shots up. What time did you leave the facility?"
"Oh just now. I wanted 800 makes so yeah, just now."
...
This is not unique to Kobe, you find stories like this with all athletes in conversation for "greatest of all time."
Secondly, there's a lot to learn from coaches as well, especially from the perspective of a startup founder. There's a reason Keith Rabois brought up the Bill Walsh's (SF 49ers coach) book, "The Score Takes Care of Itself," in the HTSAS lecture series.
Lastly, watching sports at a high level is like appreciating great art. A great backhand in tennis, a brilliant pass by a quarterback, these all have a quality of beauty about them. I feel they induce similar awe-inspiring feelings one might find in an art museum, a great music album, etc.
For example, one of Kobe's conditioning trainer's had this to say:
"When I arrived and opened the room to the main practice floor I saw Kobe. Alone. He was drenched in sweat as if he had just taken a swim. It wasn’t even 5AM.
We did some conditioning work for the next hour and fifteen minutes. Then we entered the weight room, where he would do a multitude of strength training exercises for the next 45 minutes. After that we parted ways and he went back to the practice floor to shoot. I went back to the hotel and crashed. Wow."
Later on, around 11AM, the trainer sees Kobe on the court, practicing with the USA Olympic Squad, and has this conversation:
"So when did you finish?"
"Finish what?"
"Getting your shots up. What time did you leave the facility?"
"Oh just now. I wanted 800 makes so yeah, just now."
...
This is not unique to Kobe, you find stories like this with all athletes in conversation for "greatest of all time."
Secondly, there's a lot to learn from coaches as well, especially from the perspective of a startup founder. There's a reason Keith Rabois brought up the Bill Walsh's (SF 49ers coach) book, "The Score Takes Care of Itself," in the HTSAS lecture series.
Lastly, watching sports at a high level is like appreciating great art. A great backhand in tennis, a brilliant pass by a quarterback, these all have a quality of beauty about them. I feel they induce similar awe-inspiring feelings one might find in an art museum, a great music album, etc.
If being into sports is a conscious decision, you're probably not really into sports.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines incorrectly but this post has an air of condescension and elitism. The white-collar, academic author decides to like sports because another white-collar, academic told him it was good for him. It almost feels like he chose to like sports to assuage some form of guilt.
Maybe I'm wrong and this is just normal for people in academia, I don't know.
At least he's a Patriots fan ;)
Maybe I'm reading between the lines incorrectly but this post has an air of condescension and elitism. The white-collar, academic author decides to like sports because another white-collar, academic told him it was good for him. It almost feels like he chose to like sports to assuage some form of guilt.
Maybe I'm wrong and this is just normal for people in academia, I don't know.
At least he's a Patriots fan ;)
It may feel like that but we don't know his true motive. I'll take him at his word that he is seeking an avenue by which to build real relationships with people.
For example, if your spouse has an interest, you declined to share it until you realize it could bring you closer together, and then you pursue her interest with her then who am I to say you aren't really into it?
Just like you can develop a taste for IPA beer you can develop a true enjoyment of football. I think your point is better taken as, this is a good idea but be careful not to misuse or misunderstand it's goal.
For example, if your spouse has an interest, you declined to share it until you realize it could bring you closer together, and then you pursue her interest with her then who am I to say you aren't really into it?
Just like you can develop a taste for IPA beer you can develop a true enjoyment of football. I think your point is better taken as, this is a good idea but be careful not to misuse or misunderstand it's goal.
I played (American) football from 2nd grade to 12th grade and although I wasn't the best, I loved it. I was also an AP/IB student so the two circles didn't really overlap. But now I only follow a bit of college football and the playoffs for the NFL. I still love playing the sport, but I feel it's very unproductive to sit and watch for 3-10 hours every weekend, that's the main reason I don't get into it enough and can't keep up with the stats and news that coworkers and friends rattle off during the day.
I do agree with the premise of this article, that to communicate with more people, we should put 1% of the effort into following sports as we do into building businesses or progressing career wise.
Something I've always thought about, refreshing piece.
I do agree with the premise of this article, that to communicate with more people, we should put 1% of the effort into following sports as we do into building businesses or progressing career wise.
Something I've always thought about, refreshing piece.
"But they provide an easy — and enjoyable — way to build common ground with our neighbors and fellow citizens that transcend social boundaries."
They also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to a tiny group of people while permanently injuring players both physically and mentally. Then there's the massive transfers of taxpayer money to build stadia that sometimes NEVER turn a profit, the domestic abuse, the culture of covering up sexual assault, the homophobia, the long and troubled racial history...
Seriously, fuck sportzball. As a new way to "build common ground", try actually being a human.
They also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to a tiny group of people while permanently injuring players both physically and mentally. Then there's the massive transfers of taxpayer money to build stadia that sometimes NEVER turn a profit, the domestic abuse, the culture of covering up sexual assault, the homophobia, the long and troubled racial history...
Seriously, fuck sportzball. As a new way to "build common ground", try actually being a human.
To quote a wise man, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
I used to have the attitude he mentioned, and when my eyes opened, I rejected it. Then I forced myself to watch American Football for a season. I actually had a good time. But I just couldn't really get into it. Problem is that when I have free time, I typically prefer to spend it doing other things. Not having cable doesn't help matters either.
Maybe I'll give it another shot. It seems worth it to be able to connect to more people.
Maybe I'll give it another shot. It seems worth it to be able to connect to more people.
Maybe try joining a Fantasy Football league with some of your friends? Doing this will greatly improve your enjoyment because you will be invested in the performance of the players / teams on your fantasy team.
Yeah, that's exactly what I did, with coworkers. Sorry I didn't mention it. Nobody does them at the new job, I think it might be banned :(
I recognize the prevalance of sports in society. I still can not recognize the importance. You might think that is a rude statement if you like sports. You might also think that "Kim Kardashian (and the things she does) are not important" is a rude statement if you like celebrity gossip. Personally I don't see much difference between the two. I do however find it more rude that people won't ask me personal questions or feign interest in my hobbies, yet sports fans find no problem with going out to a bar and talking about nothing else for the entirety of their stay. Have you ever hung out with a group of coworkers who worked for a company that you don't work for? Did they talk about their job the entire time? Was it incredibly boring? That is how non-sports fans feel every time one of their friends starts talking about last week's game. To clarify, I understand sports just fine. I still do not enjoy them. How does this possibly make ME a dick? If you think that the best way to relate to people is to discuss their hobbies, you have really only scratched the surface of human interaction.
I remember meeting my sister's friends in Chicago once. Even before their first son was able to walk, they were putting an inflatable baseball bat into his hands and teaching him how to swing it. Giving him big smiles when he did an approximation of the classic bat swing. Later they threw a giant beach ball as the ball. They happen to be Cubs season ticket holders - so yes by the time he was in kindergarten - he'd been to more games than many adults.
While this is an extreme example, it shows that a love of sports is passed down by parents to their kids. Really, a love of anything can be passed down (working on your car in your garage). Love and passion, can't beat them.
I grew up without watching football or major professional sports on a regular basis. Mostly because my dad did not watch any. To this day, I really can't understand football (American) - not the game, but the obsession, TV commercial timeouts and all.
Sports is such a big part of American culture that it is part of many of our childhoods.
As one of my college friends explained to me, watching football on Sundays with the guys is not really about watching football - it's about hanging out.
While this is an extreme example, it shows that a love of sports is passed down by parents to their kids. Really, a love of anything can be passed down (working on your car in your garage). Love and passion, can't beat them.
I grew up without watching football or major professional sports on a regular basis. Mostly because my dad did not watch any. To this day, I really can't understand football (American) - not the game, but the obsession, TV commercial timeouts and all.
Sports is such a big part of American culture that it is part of many of our childhoods.
As one of my college friends explained to me, watching football on Sundays with the guys is not really about watching football - it's about hanging out.
Sports will always fill a niche in that it's the one type of entertainment that's truly live and not predictable.
Drama is predictable in a way that sports aren't. Seeing it live doesn't change that. Live theater has benefits and may be enjoyable, but it doesn't address predictability. Even if the viewer doesn't know the outcome, the outcome is fixed. And it falls within a predictable range of acceptable usually-happy endings. (Not strictly, but very commonly.)
Drama is great, of course, I love it. But sports does offer something different to complement it.
Sports has some outcomes that are narrow (win vs. lose) and others that are open-ended (the arc of a player's career, a unique play that's never been seen, off-the-field drama.) They couldn't be predictable or else betting on sports wouldn't be sustainable.
You have to get yourself to care about an outcome in order for its unpredictability to be interesting, and I can see how it seems contrived that anyone would care, but the point isn't to take it seriously.
(I guess you could call improv also live and not predictable, or find other more obscure examples.)
Drama is predictable in a way that sports aren't. Seeing it live doesn't change that. Live theater has benefits and may be enjoyable, but it doesn't address predictability. Even if the viewer doesn't know the outcome, the outcome is fixed. And it falls within a predictable range of acceptable usually-happy endings. (Not strictly, but very commonly.)
Drama is great, of course, I love it. But sports does offer something different to complement it.
Sports has some outcomes that are narrow (win vs. lose) and others that are open-ended (the arc of a player's career, a unique play that's never been seen, off-the-field drama.) They couldn't be predictable or else betting on sports wouldn't be sustainable.
You have to get yourself to care about an outcome in order for its unpredictability to be interesting, and I can see how it seems contrived that anyone would care, but the point isn't to take it seriously.
(I guess you could call improv also live and not predictable, or find other more obscure examples.)
I have no interest in ball games. I enjoy Formula 1, some MotoGp, and some some cycling. My interest in Formula 1 used to be primarily strategy, but not anymore and I'm not sure when it changed - maybe refuelling, or moving everyone onto the same tyres. There's is nothing cultivated about my disinterest in ball games. If I did have an interest in football/soccer then I would cultivate a disinterest because I wouldn't support something so regularly in the news for corruption. My first live football/soccer game was one of the biggest let downs of my life - I sat there dumbfounded that anyone could be interested. I found the live games look better the further up I sat in the stands, and the bigger the stadium, but still no interest. I went to a rugby final something or other (Wasps vs Leicester?) and fell asleep. There is no chance of me following them just to have small talk with someone, I can work around that.
We can talk about music, politics (civilly), travel, technology, relationships, family, friends, books, TV... but since we can't talk about sports that is somehow a problem?
If you're interested in sports go for it, if you're not then avoid them. Making conversation and forming new relationships with people has nothing to do with watching football.
If you're interested in sports go for it, if you're not then avoid them. Making conversation and forming new relationships with people has nothing to do with watching football.
Each social subgroup or culture maintains its identity through shared cultivated interest in some areas, and cultivated disinterest in others.
The degree to which this interest or disinterest is realized is determined by how much an individual wants to be part of a group.
Wine appreciation, which is associated with high status, attracts rather clunky attempts at cultivated interested.
Religious group detractors cultivate a far more antagonistic disinterest.
No one likes beer as children but because people want to fit in so much with the "fun" group, they cultivate heavy interests and tastes for it.
Sports for the most part is tied down to location. A small levels it associates you with your school, and at higher levels it associates you with your city, state, or even country.
Groups often compete against other groups for resources in a 0 sum game. Sports passion can actually be used to measure the level of "loyalty" a person has to a group. The most loyal people will put his or her group above other groups to the detriment of others.
(This nepotism is actually necessary for stable groups. We treat are friends and family this way. Also, if a morally superior alien race of 10 trillion decides the destruction of earth is a necessary evil, meritocracy requires we die willingly)
I don't care much about the state of the homeless in San Francisco. It makes me sound cold but it's the truth. To me, I don't understand why I should care more about this than the homeless in some other state, or the starving and dying in some other country.
People don't like these "free-agents" because they seem completely selfish and base everything on cold logic and meritocracy than warm immediate empathy. They can't be trusted to do what's right for the group, in fact, they may just jump ship when some other better group shows up.
Sports fanaticism is a reasonable measure of this.
The degree to which this interest or disinterest is realized is determined by how much an individual wants to be part of a group.
Wine appreciation, which is associated with high status, attracts rather clunky attempts at cultivated interested.
Religious group detractors cultivate a far more antagonistic disinterest.
No one likes beer as children but because people want to fit in so much with the "fun" group, they cultivate heavy interests and tastes for it.
Sports for the most part is tied down to location. A small levels it associates you with your school, and at higher levels it associates you with your city, state, or even country.
Groups often compete against other groups for resources in a 0 sum game. Sports passion can actually be used to measure the level of "loyalty" a person has to a group. The most loyal people will put his or her group above other groups to the detriment of others.
(This nepotism is actually necessary for stable groups. We treat are friends and family this way. Also, if a morally superior alien race of 10 trillion decides the destruction of earth is a necessary evil, meritocracy requires we die willingly)
I don't care much about the state of the homeless in San Francisco. It makes me sound cold but it's the truth. To me, I don't understand why I should care more about this than the homeless in some other state, or the starving and dying in some other country.
People don't like these "free-agents" because they seem completely selfish and base everything on cold logic and meritocracy than warm immediate empathy. They can't be trusted to do what's right for the group, in fact, they may just jump ship when some other better group shows up.
Sports fanaticism is a reasonable measure of this.
Why in the world would I try to take an interest in a topic I have no interest in in order to fit in with people on a level I have no interest in fitting in?
Life is very simply to short to be excited about these kind of things. As it is, I don't even have time to find out everything I really do want to find out.
If I did have to get interested in something I have absolutely zero interest in, it might as well be fashion shows. I'm thinking the romance potential might be higher than with sports.
If people are interested in professional sports fine... I don't feel elitist or look down on them. I do scratch my head and wonder to myself that they don't have something more interesting to do with their time, but whatever. I don't claim to know what everyone else should like. I sure don't have to be interested though.
Life is very simply to short to be excited about these kind of things. As it is, I don't even have time to find out everything I really do want to find out.
If I did have to get interested in something I have absolutely zero interest in, it might as well be fashion shows. I'm thinking the romance potential might be higher than with sports.
If people are interested in professional sports fine... I don't feel elitist or look down on them. I do scratch my head and wonder to myself that they don't have something more interesting to do with their time, but whatever. I don't claim to know what everyone else should like. I sure don't have to be interested though.
Watching sports is a perfectly fine method of entertainment on its own, but I have two problems with it as a whole:
1. Dominance of sports culture is distracting to students in high school and college, and acts as a money sink. Playing sports is great, but I'm not sure why we subsidize it so much (talking about competitive teams here, not intramurals/PE).
2. The degree to which many people (obviously not most sports watchers, but a substantial minority) are obsessed with sports and tie up their identity in a given team is just insane. People will legit get angry about their team losing or having bad calls or whatnot, to the extent that sports riots or getting in fights because you liked the wrong team in the wrong place is a real thing. That's crazy!
1. Dominance of sports culture is distracting to students in high school and college, and acts as a money sink. Playing sports is great, but I'm not sure why we subsidize it so much (talking about competitive teams here, not intramurals/PE).
2. The degree to which many people (obviously not most sports watchers, but a substantial minority) are obsessed with sports and tie up their identity in a given team is just insane. People will legit get angry about their team losing or having bad calls or whatnot, to the extent that sports riots or getting in fights because you liked the wrong team in the wrong place is a real thing. That's crazy!
I enjoy playing sports but watching or following them is boring to me. I played a fair amount of sports in high-school as they were mandated, though you could satisfy the requirement with theater or theater-tech or "mathlete" style competition which I took part in a few times instead of my winter sport.
That said, this may be a strategy for connecting with other people but there's all sorts of small-talk you can make with someone else, but it might involve some human vulnerability on your part. I make non-sports-related small-talk with pretty much anyone unless it's obvious they want to be left alone. I'd rather be talking to women anyways, and "talking sports" doesn't get you all that far.
That said, this may be a strategy for connecting with other people but there's all sorts of small-talk you can make with someone else, but it might involve some human vulnerability on your part. I make non-sports-related small-talk with pretty much anyone unless it's obvious they want to be left alone. I'd rather be talking to women anyways, and "talking sports" doesn't get you all that far.
And just for reference on my sports "bonafides" as unimpressive as they may be: I enjoy playing soccer and lacrosse. I varsity lettered in both all four years and was all-state in lacrosse.
Once I hit college I just wasn't tall enough to play at the collegiate level.
Once I hit college I just wasn't tall enough to play at the collegiate level.
I've tried multiple times to become interested in spectator sports. To date the only ones I find even mildly interesting are:
- NBA Finals basketball
- World Series of Poker
- UFC
Football is slow-paced and disheartening b/c of all the drives that end with a punt. Baseball is slow-paced. Hockey is OK but after a watching for 10 minutes I start to get board. Tennis and Golf are both extremely frustrating as well.
I love to participate in Amateur Radio Radiosport and have done quite well at it, and also love SCUBA and snowboarding but not in a competitive way (watching or participating).
So I guess it's a mystery to me how people can find mainstream sports so worth sinking time/energy into. If I were in sales I'd certainly glance at the sports page now and then.
- NBA Finals basketball
- World Series of Poker
- UFC
Football is slow-paced and disheartening b/c of all the drives that end with a punt. Baseball is slow-paced. Hockey is OK but after a watching for 10 minutes I start to get board. Tennis and Golf are both extremely frustrating as well.
I love to participate in Amateur Radio Radiosport and have done quite well at it, and also love SCUBA and snowboarding but not in a competitive way (watching or participating).
So I guess it's a mystery to me how people can find mainstream sports so worth sinking time/energy into. If I were in sales I'd certainly glance at the sports page now and then.
Golf in particular was hard to watch on TV until I started playing golf. The concentration required to hit near perfect shots over and over across 4 days is insane. The other beauty of golf is that almost anyone can go out and hit that perfect shot once and relate just a bit. Golf is also very easy to handicap between skill levels making it easy for various people to play together (my wife and I can 'compete' with the handicap in place).
Football is the perfect party/passive sport. There is so much downtime you can have entire conversations and still watch the game. I do not know what the stats are now, but the NFL has done a lot to give the offense the advantage and up the scoring. The problem I have with the NFL on TV is not showing the full 22. When you watch that view you see how little margin of error there is during the game. The QB looking left a 1/2 second sooner and a sack could have been a TD and vice versa.
Football is the perfect party/passive sport. There is so much downtime you can have entire conversations and still watch the game. I do not know what the stats are now, but the NFL has done a lot to give the offense the advantage and up the scoring. The problem I have with the NFL on TV is not showing the full 22. When you watch that view you see how little margin of error there is during the game. The QB looking left a 1/2 second sooner and a sack could have been a TD and vice versa.
> - UFC
If you have a chance, I recommend going to a live local MMA show. They're a lot of fun.
If you have a chance, I recommend going to a live local MMA show. They're a lot of fun.
As a person who has played many sports and specifically basketball to a college D1 level I find this article both true and troubling. This is because I also enjoy discussing things at a high level. I enjoy the fact that I can talk to a person about Turing tests (or any CS related topic) and then turn the conversation right into how the Baltimore Ravens need better defensive backs for next season (Baltimore/DC fan here).
I think that people who engage in elitism are extremely petty and self-centered and I have told the few that I come across so. No one is better than any other person based on their passions or interests.
I just want everyone to be friends. Is that so hard to ask?
I think that people who engage in elitism are extremely petty and self-centered and I have told the few that I come across so. No one is better than any other person based on their passions or interests.
I just want everyone to be friends. Is that so hard to ask?
> As a person who has played many sports and specifically basketball to a college D1 level I find this article both true and troubling. This is because I also enjoy discussing things at a high level. I enjoy the fact that I can talk to a person about Turing tests (or any CS related topic) and then turn the conversation right into how the Baltimore Ravens need better defensive backs for next season (Baltimore/DC fan here).
I'm glad that you enjoy that, and its great for you. I'm not sure why that should dissuade anyone else from choosing not participate in the ritual of fandom in the particular professional sports that are widely popular, or why the fact that you enjoy it should make it "troubling" that other people choose not to engage with it.
> I just want everyone to be friends. Is that so hard to ask?
No, it is easy to ask anything. It is also unreasonable. Friendship, if it is to be meaningful, is a positive commitment of time and resources. Everyone can't be friends without robbing the term of all meaning, because there are too many people.
I'm glad that you enjoy that, and its great for you. I'm not sure why that should dissuade anyone else from choosing not participate in the ritual of fandom in the particular professional sports that are widely popular, or why the fact that you enjoy it should make it "troubling" that other people choose not to engage with it.
> I just want everyone to be friends. Is that so hard to ask?
No, it is easy to ask anything. It is also unreasonable. Friendship, if it is to be meaningful, is a positive commitment of time and resources. Everyone can't be friends without robbing the term of all meaning, because there are too many people.
> I'm glad that you enjoy that, and its great for you. I'm not sure why that should dissuade anyone else from choosing not participate in the ritual of fandom in the particular professional sports that are widely popular, or why the fact that you enjoy it should make it "troubling" that other people choose not to engage with it.
I am not trying to dissuade anyone from anything. All I am saying to be more open to the way other people may think or have passion for. Also, from the actual post, the author correctly summarizes that sports can be something too bridge gaps between all types of people. So in effect, you are saying people do not want/need this capability? The ability to be able to talk to another human being able something mildy to fanatically interesting?
> No, it is easy to ask anything. It is also unreasonable. Friendship, if it is to be meaningful, is a positive commitment of time and resources. Everyone can't be friends without robbing the term of all meaning, because there are too many people.
You're right because I just asked it. Also, the definition of friend is relatively broad and I am half glass full kind of guy. Finally, you may taking my comments and possibly yourself a little to serious, my friend.
I am not trying to dissuade anyone from anything. All I am saying to be more open to the way other people may think or have passion for. Also, from the actual post, the author correctly summarizes that sports can be something too bridge gaps between all types of people. So in effect, you are saying people do not want/need this capability? The ability to be able to talk to another human being able something mildy to fanatically interesting?
> No, it is easy to ask anything. It is also unreasonable. Friendship, if it is to be meaningful, is a positive commitment of time and resources. Everyone can't be friends without robbing the term of all meaning, because there are too many people.
You're right because I just asked it. Also, the definition of friend is relatively broad and I am half glass full kind of guy. Finally, you may taking my comments and possibly yourself a little to serious, my friend.
My indifference is not cultivated. It comes from a native disdain of authoritarianism and tribalism. Not sure why it would be desirable to make small talk with people about uninteresting things.
I do enjoy some heavy metal, though.
I do enjoy some heavy metal, though.
I cultivated interest in golf to build rapport with the upper class. That didn't sound right, did it? Now is there any real difference between that and what the author is saying? I don't see one.
Apparently you missed where you used the word "upper" or thought that it was equivalent to "lower," when in fact they are opposites. My apologies for this gentle correction if you are not a native english speaker.
I am not a native speaker FWIW but "upper" is exactly what I wanted to say. My point was that if you replace football with golf and working class with upper class the whole idea of cultivating interest in sport to fit with some social group starts to sound really cheesy. And that author's "noble" intent is a fig leaf on what sounds like a rather pointless exercise to me. Although I cannot pinpoint exactly why.
(btw, I am not the one who downvoted you. HN got really trigger-happy lately)
(btw, I am not the one who downvoted you. HN got really trigger-happy lately)
I don't think it sounds cheesy, in fact there are tons of people who play golf (or at least only get into it) for the business and networking aspects of it. The difference is that building rapport with the upper class is probably seen as self-serving while building rapport with the lower class is maybe construed as altruistic, noble, self-sacrificing? It really comes down to common courtesy; if you are pleasant to rich upper class people it can be dismissed as sucking up; if you treat people in the lower class the same way, there's less room to dismiss it as anything but genuine niceness.
This doesn't just apply to sports. Most people don't share my enthusiasm for math and science but most people are enthusiastic about something. I enjoy asking people what they do for fun, or about an interesting (to them) project they may be working on. Almost any topic can be interesting when explained by someone with the right passion. Even if I don't especially care about a given topic it's not too much work to appreciate why someone else might, which is a good way to avoid being a snobbish jerk.
I find this a fascinating topic to think about because I've had so much experience with it.
Sports have been a significant part of my life ever since I was in 1st grade. I played several varsity sports throughout high school and had opportunities for scholarships in two different sports. One of those sports was golf and I find that it elicits the opposite response in a way that I hate (but also understand).
When I've been at interviews for Google, Facebook, Amazon, wherever, I inevitably talk about sports with the other undergrads that are interviewing with me. In an effort to avoid the perception that I'm some sort of country club WASP, I rarely mention that I played extremely high level golf throughout high school. I fear that it won't fit into the "culture" of various places that I've applied to and likely won't mesh with those I'm talking to. So instead, I let my "hipster"-ish clothing, love of post-hardcore metal, and interest in all books not found on the NYT Bestseller list, craft whatever perception people may have of me.
But despite this, I can talk about the NBA and NFL with the best of them and I'm getting to the point where I don't care what people think because I've found it's too hard to worry about it. If I want to go throw some iron over my head 4 times a week and people consider me a meathead, so be it. But it's a whole lot easier to have them think that than to try to hide it for ridiculous reasons.
Sports have been a significant part of my life ever since I was in 1st grade. I played several varsity sports throughout high school and had opportunities for scholarships in two different sports. One of those sports was golf and I find that it elicits the opposite response in a way that I hate (but also understand).
When I've been at interviews for Google, Facebook, Amazon, wherever, I inevitably talk about sports with the other undergrads that are interviewing with me. In an effort to avoid the perception that I'm some sort of country club WASP, I rarely mention that I played extremely high level golf throughout high school. I fear that it won't fit into the "culture" of various places that I've applied to and likely won't mesh with those I'm talking to. So instead, I let my "hipster"-ish clothing, love of post-hardcore metal, and interest in all books not found on the NYT Bestseller list, craft whatever perception people may have of me.
But despite this, I can talk about the NBA and NFL with the best of them and I'm getting to the point where I don't care what people think because I've found it's too hard to worry about it. If I want to go throw some iron over my head 4 times a week and people consider me a meathead, so be it. But it's a whole lot easier to have them think that than to try to hide it for ridiculous reasons.
Bethany Bryson, a sociologist at JMU has shown that increased education is associated with increased inclusiveness in musical taste (i.e., highly educated people like more types of music) but that these people are most likely to reject music that is highly favored by the least educated people. Her paper’s title sums up the attitude: "Anything But Heavy Metal".
This is hilarious given that there have been studies showing that metal fans are smarter than non-metal fans! At any rate, the idea that interest in heavy-metal marks one as "working class" or "non-intellectual" is totally absurd. But, then again, so is the idea that "intellectual" and "working class" are disjoint sets. (Yes, you can define either or both terms to create that distinction, but it's clearly not true when using the vernacular / intuitive definition for both).
As far as sports... I have never understood the attitude some self-styled "intellectuals" have in regards to sports. There is a tremendous amount of benefit to be gained from participating in sports of various types, and if one participates in a sport at an amateur level, it follows that one's passion for that sport would extend to wanting to watch the highest level competitors compete with each other.
I suppose the analogy would make sense to the "intellectual" set if you just defined chess as a sport. :-)
This is hilarious given that there have been studies showing that metal fans are smarter than non-metal fans! At any rate, the idea that interest in heavy-metal marks one as "working class" or "non-intellectual" is totally absurd. But, then again, so is the idea that "intellectual" and "working class" are disjoint sets. (Yes, you can define either or both terms to create that distinction, but it's clearly not true when using the vernacular / intuitive definition for both).
As far as sports... I have never understood the attitude some self-styled "intellectuals" have in regards to sports. There is a tremendous amount of benefit to be gained from participating in sports of various types, and if one participates in a sport at an amateur level, it follows that one's passion for that sport would extend to wanting to watch the highest level competitors compete with each other.
I suppose the analogy would make sense to the "intellectual" set if you just defined chess as a sport. :-)
I have friends who aren't into sports, but follow e-sports as if it were a physical sport.
I can't get into either though. I think it has more to do than intellectuals not liking spectating sports.
I can't get into either though. I think it has more to do than intellectuals not liking spectating sports.
I'm the same way. I love playing sports personally. I'm more into individual sports like racket, cycling, etc, though I have played soccer and such way back. But I just can't really get into spectating and never had. For me I'd much rather be doing my own thing than watching somebody else do theirs; I lose interest pretty quickly. That includes both e-sports and physical sports. I'll enjoy the odd game day BBQ and beers with the guys though.
While I don't condone rudeness about sports (I don't like watching sports, but when my friends and family want to do it I politely watch and listen), politeness about what people love is a two-way street that I understand vividly in my profession: mathematics.
Because if there's anything that people compete to show their ignorance about, it's basic mathematics. I would gladly become a die-hard sports fan if it meant the average person I meet didn't talk they way they do about math.
Because if there's anything that people compete to show their ignorance about, it's basic mathematics. I would gladly become a die-hard sports fan if it meant the average person I meet didn't talk they way they do about math.
[deleted]
I've never liked sports.
My reasons had very little to do with academia or privileged tech culture. I grew up poor in a blue collar part of Florida. I can keenly recall that my dad is an Oakland Raiders fan while my mom favors the Minnesota Vikings.
My dislike for sports began with not being good at anything physical. Running, kickball, dodgeball, push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, baseball, flag football, etc. I was jaded towards them at school, so I focused other activities (drawing, writing, reading, and of course, programming).
My hobbies were frequently disrupted by sports. Pep rallies were the bane of my existence in high school. Every time a decisive sports game was on the air, I couldn't avoid the cacophony of drunkards yelling in vain at a television. "GO GO GO GO GO!"
"Pfft, they can't hear you, morons," I would say. After a while, I invested in a pair of headphones.
I graduated from high school in 2008. It's been years since sports were in any way forced upon me. I still don't like sports. Not because it's cool to dislike them, but because it was a nuisance for so many years of my life.
But if someone else likes sports? That's cool. I'll listen and ask questions even if I don't really give a shit. It's called being a decent human being.
My reasons had very little to do with academia or privileged tech culture. I grew up poor in a blue collar part of Florida. I can keenly recall that my dad is an Oakland Raiders fan while my mom favors the Minnesota Vikings.
My dislike for sports began with not being good at anything physical. Running, kickball, dodgeball, push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, baseball, flag football, etc. I was jaded towards them at school, so I focused other activities (drawing, writing, reading, and of course, programming).
My hobbies were frequently disrupted by sports. Pep rallies were the bane of my existence in high school. Every time a decisive sports game was on the air, I couldn't avoid the cacophony of drunkards yelling in vain at a television. "GO GO GO GO GO!"
"Pfft, they can't hear you, morons," I would say. After a while, I invested in a pair of headphones.
I graduated from high school in 2008. It's been years since sports were in any way forced upon me. I still don't like sports. Not because it's cool to dislike them, but because it was a nuisance for so many years of my life.
But if someone else likes sports? That's cool. I'll listen and ask questions even if I don't really give a shit. It's called being a decent human being.
After reading through a lot of these comments...I just have to ask, does anyone ever just play sports for fun? There seems to be a lot of real visceral and negative feelings toward organized sports - even beyond the professional leagues.
Does anyone enjoy just watching baseball? I absolutely love Fantasy baseball. It's a great intellectually stimulating way to just relax. Am I allowed to relax, or am I supporting some grand corporate conspiracy.
This thread is quite sad to me.
Does anyone enjoy just watching baseball? I absolutely love Fantasy baseball. It's a great intellectually stimulating way to just relax. Am I allowed to relax, or am I supporting some grand corporate conspiracy.
This thread is quite sad to me.
No you are clear not hipster enough. :) Actually, for people that just don't like sports, fine, but a lot of what's been written is pseudo-intellectual jibber jabber about tribalism blah blah jingoism, etc.
I have a hard time following professional sports because I don't feel any connection to the team. I live in a smaller city so we don't have any top-tier professional sports, just a minor league baseball team that's about to move, a minor league hockey team and some semi-pro teams. I would nominally say I'm a fan of the Titans as they're the closest NFL team, but they're still an hour and a half away and, anyways, it's more "oh, look, they're on, guess I'll watch."
But, I LOVE college sports. I graduated from to a major SEC university (Auburn) and attended all but one home game the 5 seasons I was there, as well as at least one away game each season. Same with basketball, only my attendance wasn't quite so diligent.
But I feel a connection with that team, even years later. That's my school. When I was there, they were my classmates. I had a geology class with the quarterback. Even now, years removed from my time as a student, I never miss a game on TV and try to make it down there at least once a season.
Seeing the stadium, seeing the band, hearing the roar of the crowd at kickoff, smelling the barbecue and bourbon in the air. The indescribable thrill of seeing a live eagle fly down and land in the middle of the field. Watching the chess match between the the two insanely intelligent coaches, watching the plays executed by talented players who are still often works in progress - not finely tuned professional athletes. And stepping foot back on campus once again. All those potent memories come flooding back. It truly is a wonderful experience for me. An unbelievable rush.
Some of my fraternity brothers and I even have a long running iMessage group that sees hundreds of messages on gameday going back and forth as the four of us cheer, analyze, celebrate and commiserate. Even though we're separated by different occupations and thousands of miles, we maintain that link that was our time together and our shared interest in sport.
Stephen Fry captured it perfectly in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPeGPwGKe8
But I've heard NFL fans talk about their teams exactly how I talk about Auburn. So I wonder if it might be different if I lived in a city that actually had a real top-tier professional team. Some way of having a connection to this team.
But, I LOVE college sports. I graduated from to a major SEC university (Auburn) and attended all but one home game the 5 seasons I was there, as well as at least one away game each season. Same with basketball, only my attendance wasn't quite so diligent.
But I feel a connection with that team, even years later. That's my school. When I was there, they were my classmates. I had a geology class with the quarterback. Even now, years removed from my time as a student, I never miss a game on TV and try to make it down there at least once a season.
Seeing the stadium, seeing the band, hearing the roar of the crowd at kickoff, smelling the barbecue and bourbon in the air. The indescribable thrill of seeing a live eagle fly down and land in the middle of the field. Watching the chess match between the the two insanely intelligent coaches, watching the plays executed by talented players who are still often works in progress - not finely tuned professional athletes. And stepping foot back on campus once again. All those potent memories come flooding back. It truly is a wonderful experience for me. An unbelievable rush.
Some of my fraternity brothers and I even have a long running iMessage group that sees hundreds of messages on gameday going back and forth as the four of us cheer, analyze, celebrate and commiserate. Even though we're separated by different occupations and thousands of miles, we maintain that link that was our time together and our shared interest in sport.
Stephen Fry captured it perfectly in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPeGPwGKe8
But I've heard NFL fans talk about their teams exactly how I talk about Auburn. So I wonder if it might be different if I lived in a city that actually had a real top-tier professional team. Some way of having a connection to this team.
That's all fine and dandy, I've never had an interest in watching sports on TV and I would rather spend my CPU cycles in other stuff. Time is a precious resource and I have other priorities and other hobbies/interests for which I actually care. That said, I do enjoy watching live games and occasionally playing some sports with friends.
Alan Watt nailed it long ago:
http://youtu.be/C6hiMLQs50E
http://youtu.be/C6hiMLQs50E
For someone who sets out to change their social interactions, the author is surprisingly not very aware of dynamics at work here. The 'disdainful academics' are maintaining social boundaries just as much as the fans of a local team. Of course they go to great lengths to explain that to each other, they are actively maintaining that boundary. Whether or not you personally like or dislike sports, (or 'the other team') is very different from social displays which assert your allegiances.
I do think there's something to be said for refusing to conform, however - whether that's telling your fellow academics they're missing out, or telling folks at the bar that professional sports are a lot less fun that throwing a ball around in the park.
Sports, like any large body of knowledge, requires a dedication of a great deal of brain-hours to become proficient at. Actually participating in sports requires an order of magnitude more investment, of course. Since human beings have limited time available to them, they MUST sacrifice something else in order to become knowledgeable about sports. For me, this is why I have no interest in sports. The game mechanics interest me, the statistics interest me, and I could find a lot of avenues to approach the subject enjoyably... but I would have to give up something else. And the other things I occupy myself with are, in my opinion, more worth my time.
As someone who doesn't like sports, who grew up in an environment where sports were very prominent, going to college and having the opportunity to dismiss popular sports, call it sportsball, and actually connect with people on that was a breath of fresh air, and felt like a goddamn treasure at the time.
Now that I'm not 18 anymore, I can see where this article is coming from. I don't have the luxury of only talking to people in my peer group, and I've learned a little bit from sports about how to get excited from other people's excitement. Still, I feel like I had to leave an environment where sports were Mandatory Fun to get that enjoyment.
Now that I'm not 18 anymore, I can see where this article is coming from. I don't have the luxury of only talking to people in my peer group, and I've learned a little bit from sports about how to get excited from other people's excitement. Still, I feel like I had to leave an environment where sports were Mandatory Fun to get that enjoyment.
tl;dr I decided to take interest in something that lots of other people do so I could talk to them.
I remember reading an article about the British show Bullseye that pointed out that the blue-collar workers shown in the 80s episodes actually knew more about current events at the time than some educated people might today. It was expected as common knowledge and things you would talk about. These days, sport is still the key cross-section.
And I'm pretty sure that football transcends class in the UK these days (I know to be at least a little interested in Sunderland and NUFC games due to moving here, just as every Kiwi worth their salt knows at least a little about rugby).
I remember reading an article about the British show Bullseye that pointed out that the blue-collar workers shown in the 80s episodes actually knew more about current events at the time than some educated people might today. It was expected as common knowledge and things you would talk about. These days, sport is still the key cross-section.
And I'm pretty sure that football transcends class in the UK these days (I know to be at least a little interested in Sunderland and NUFC games due to moving here, just as every Kiwi worth their salt knows at least a little about rugby).
This may be different in the US but in the UK, I would say that small talk about sports, especially football, is much more common among men than women and I was surprised that the article didn't mention this. I've spent a lot of time in female company the last few years and sport is very rarely mentioned, whereas working for a tech company as nearly the only woman, I ended up learning lots about football just to not feel completely left out.
We also have sports such as cricket which are probably a topic of conversation for the middle classes more than the working classes, but then class division is something that we've had centuries to refine!
We also have sports such as cricket which are probably a topic of conversation for the middle classes more than the working classes, but then class division is something that we've had centuries to refine!
I'm in the US and not a sports fan and I regularly find myself in groups where the topic of conversation is sports. It's a little uncomfortable for me because it's assumed that all men are sports fans in my city (Boston).
My girlfriend recently cultivated an interest in sports so that she could fit in better with her predominately male colleagues. It seems to have worked for her. I can't tell for sure how much she actually enjoys it vs. how much she enjoys watching some play that she knows she'll will be a topic of conversation at work.
My girlfriend recently cultivated an interest in sports so that she could fit in better with her predominately male colleagues. It seems to have worked for her. I can't tell for sure how much she actually enjoys it vs. how much she enjoys watching some play that she knows she'll will be a topic of conversation at work.
For a context: I emigrated from Europe to North America as an adult. I used to watch hockey and football (soccer) growing up and know the rules and mildly enjoy watching an occasional game. And I can totally relate to the issue of missing opportunities for smalltalk because of my lack of interest in typical North American sports: american football and baseball. Not that I cultivated disinterest, it is just I did not grow up with it and right now getting to know the rules and intricacies of theses games seems too much of a hassle.
I am thinking of getting to know American Football, more for socializing than anything. Baseball is probably a lost cause for me.
I am thinking of getting to know American Football, more for socializing than anything. Baseball is probably a lost cause for me.
If you're learning about sports to "connect" with people using "small talk", assert your motivation is elitist anyway. "Working class people" are very capable of talking about things other than sports. Yet one of the reasons pro sports is so popular with "working class people" is that thinking about the issues that really affect them (rationally) is depressing. That thing about bread and circuses is real. So I deliberately make small talk with people about things that could actually matter to them, like, where their tax money is being spent.
(Oh, and since when is a STEM job not working class?)
(Oh, and since when is a STEM job not working class?)
I'm with you. There's a whole world out there, it's not hard to find other shared interests.
... although it did get awkward when a Lyft driver opened up enough to start telling me about financial astrology. Fascinating, but awkward.
... although it did get awkward when a Lyft driver opened up enough to start telling me about financial astrology. Fascinating, but awkward.
This article is right. A big appeal of sports is the camaraderie. As long as you don't take it too seriously its just all in fun.
I follow a lot of people in tech on social media (mainly twitter) and while 90% its interesting and insightful when a big sporting event comes around I want to delete a lot of those people.
It seems as if they get on a podium and decided that everyone watching said sport is an idiot. It makes them seem condescending. This isn't everyone I follow in tech but enough to get annoying.
Terms I definitely know I will see Sunday on Twitter are "hand egg", "sports ball" followed by mocking of people watching the Super Bowl.
I follow a lot of people in tech on social media (mainly twitter) and while 90% its interesting and insightful when a big sporting event comes around I want to delete a lot of those people.
It seems as if they get on a podium and decided that everyone watching said sport is an idiot. It makes them seem condescending. This isn't everyone I follow in tech but enough to get annoying.
Terms I definitely know I will see Sunday on Twitter are "hand egg", "sports ball" followed by mocking of people watching the Super Bowl.
Kudos to this author for making an effort at establishing common ground for small talk. Watching the culture change over the past several decades, I worry that there are less and less points of common interest in American society.
Having said that, I don't like watching professional sports. I don't like watching games; I'd rather play them myself. I don't like supporting huge monopolies of multi-millionaires playing other multi-millionaires while ruining their bodies. It's just not my value system.
I watch 1 or 2 footballs games a year, usually the Superbowl, and usually for the same reason this author decided to become a fan.
Having said that, I don't like watching professional sports. I don't like watching games; I'd rather play them myself. I don't like supporting huge monopolies of multi-millionaires playing other multi-millionaires while ruining their bodies. It's just not my value system.
I watch 1 or 2 footballs games a year, usually the Superbowl, and usually for the same reason this author decided to become a fan.
As someone who doesn't watch sports - hasn't fantasy football basically ruined football?
1) No one has team allegiance anymore, it is now player allegiance 2) People waste more time watching football to cover their entire team.
The NFL shoves so many shitty ads in your face it's painful to even sit there and pretend to care. I have trouble understanding why everyone watches games in real-time. Sign off twitter/facebook/whatever so you do not get updates, record the game, and fast-forward through every horrible ad/time-out/whatever else you have to sit through
I know this isnt going to be popular, but I had to say it haha.
1) No one has team allegiance anymore, it is now player allegiance 2) People waste more time watching football to cover their entire team.
The NFL shoves so many shitty ads in your face it's painful to even sit there and pretend to care. I have trouble understanding why everyone watches games in real-time. Sign off twitter/facebook/whatever so you do not get updates, record the game, and fast-forward through every horrible ad/time-out/whatever else you have to sit through
I know this isnt going to be popular, but I had to say it haha.
I don't think it's ruined football at all. The older fans certainly still have team allegiances, while fantasy helps new fans get interested in the NFL.
Yeah advertisements suck, but any television programming also face the same problems. The great thing with watching football is that you're already conditioned to not pay attention to the game for 30 seconds every 10 seconds.
Yeah advertisements suck, but any television programming also face the same problems. The great thing with watching football is that you're already conditioned to not pay attention to the game for 30 seconds every 10 seconds.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
The article defends that cultivated people's dislike for professional sports is artificial, and then the author goes on to tell us how he artificially made himself like professional sports. Quite ironic.
I'm not a huge sports fan. I go to a couple baseball games a year, but I no longer watch any of the games on tv. I only watch the Super Bowl for the ads. The morning radio show I listen to is technically a "sports" show. It's pretty light on the actual sports and is mostly just stupidity, which I prefer in the morning (on the way home it's mostly NPR or music).
Anyways, I glean enough sports info from the show to hold conversations with people who are really into sports. Being able to socialize with all types of people is a good trait to have.
Anyways, I glean enough sports info from the show to hold conversations with people who are really into sports. Being able to socialize with all types of people is a good trait to have.
I have always assumed that, like most geeks, disinterest in sports was not so much "cultivated" as it was a kneejerk reaction to the fact that the football players were the people making my life miserable every fucking day in public school.
A huge chunk of my disinterest in certain genres of music (e.g. heavy metal) come from the same wellspring.
Of course high school was many years ago for me and I have moved on with my life. But until a strong-enough counterforce is applied, football (and Led Zeppelin) will continue to elicit a vaguely negative response.
A huge chunk of my disinterest in certain genres of music (e.g. heavy metal) come from the same wellspring.
Of course high school was many years ago for me and I have moved on with my life. But until a strong-enough counterforce is applied, football (and Led Zeppelin) will continue to elicit a vaguely negative response.
[deleted]
When people say they don't care about sports, it sounds to me as ludicrous as if they said they don't care to watch movies or read fiction. On some level, those are all reasonable choices. But they all involve summarily rejecting an important medium for the telling of interesting and valuable human stories. In the field of music, theater, films, literature, and sports, I don't think sports is really that different from the others in terms of its capacity for telling valuable stories about human experience.
As someone who doesn't care about sports, care to watch movies, or read fiction, you must find me quite ludicrous :)
I dislike sports because it's watching as opposed to doing.
I've found myself in a much different position WRT sports: I can't talk about it and not be a completely out-of-touch nerd. And it actually is a problem. People do like talking about sports, but you'd be surprised at how few really care about sports. When I like something I get into it: Bayesian systems, predictive analytics, disregarding common assumptions. Most people just don't want to talk about sports in that way.
The article is correct that one should not cultivate a disinterest in sports and talk about the "working class struggle". If you're going to be an elitist, do it right.
Spectator sports, rooting for a team, appeal to the most basic and stupid tribal instincts. This is why we end up with crappy policies, this is what we can't have nice thing.
So yes, it's fine to despise it, and to look down on people who make it an important part of their life.
Spectator sports, rooting for a team, appeal to the most basic and stupid tribal instincts. This is why we end up with crappy policies, this is what we can't have nice thing.
So yes, it's fine to despise it, and to look down on people who make it an important part of their life.
If you think sports are the reason we have stupid policies then I think something is stupid and it's not sports. These supposed intellectuals on HackerNews are split between socialism and anarcho-capitalism so it can be hard to really say which of these policies are objectively stupid let alone blame sports of all things for them.
No, tribalism is the reason we have both sports and stupid policies. The hope is that by condemning sports one can make a more general point about tribalism.
Extraordinary claims. It is fashionable for hipsters to income their god as an explanation for all that is wrong "tribalism". Is any evidence required? Honestly I think the idea thAr sports is tribalism is a cop out for the intellectual lazy. You have to think at a higher intellectual than to stupid policies come from sports. As I pointed out, the alleged intellectuals on HN can't agree between socialism and anarcho-capitalism so I think "stupid policy" is a bit loaded. What policy and what was its path of origination, I guess you would say sports every time with a lot if hand waving. :)
I give you the Nika Riots, to begin with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
Well that's just the sorriest thing you could have responded with. Finding riots relating to sporting even over a millennium ago, or even a few riots period, is hardly very interesting or enough to indict sports with the cause of all of our political problems.
1) I said no such thing. I said tribalism causes both bad politics and interest for sports.
2) Did you even bother reading about the Nika riots? It shows the deep connection there is between arbitrary tribal affiliations, sports, and politics.
2) Did you even bother reading about the Nika riots? It shows the deep connection there is between arbitrary tribal affiliations, sports, and politics.
I wouldn't have a problem with professional sports if they weren't subsidized by the rest of society. Why does 80% of my cable bill go to pay for ESPN and ESPN2? Why are my tax dollars paying for a stadium who's profits go to the private owners? Why do I get a discount at the grocery store for wearing a football jersey? Professional sports would be nowhere the size they are today without the subsidies.
This is really an interesting thing to see.
I live in Phoenix, AZ. Which is where the superbowl is taking place. There are literally ads for it EVERYWHERE.
And yet I still meet people who aren't just ignorant of what is going on[1], but seemingly proud of their ignorance.
[1]Of course some people might just not know what is going on, or assume it's just another big sporting event and not really recognize that this one is especially significant.
I live in Phoenix, AZ. Which is where the superbowl is taking place. There are literally ads for it EVERYWHERE.
And yet I still meet people who aren't just ignorant of what is going on[1], but seemingly proud of their ignorance.
[1]Of course some people might just not know what is going on, or assume it's just another big sporting event and not really recognize that this one is especially significant.
Really cool to see Michael Albert mentioned on HN. He runs a great site called ZNet, a portal to really good political analysis from what you might call the "left libertarian" perspective. For example Noam Chomsky is a regular contributor, just to give you an idea.
The design's a little dated and they're always looking for technical help.
https://zcomm.org/
The design's a little dated and they're always looking for technical help.
https://zcomm.org/
Reading this discussion feels like just as much a waste of time as following sports. I think it's hard and pointless to make any conclusions about the reasons people are stubbornly disinterested in mainstream entertainment. Whether somebody is truly disinterested or trying to be disinterested because they believe they are above the lowly peasants...who really cares?
At least the article itself isn't too difficult to get through. From his list, number 3 is the one that jumped out at me:
"Interest in sports can expand or shrink to fill the time you’re willing to give it"
I'm skeptical about the "shrink" part. The main problem I have with sports is how swallowed up some people and society in general can be. There was a recent discussion on HN about books and how impossible it is to be able to read everything that's important within your lifetime. Now, I don't even read books (yet), and I'm certainly not a good role model for spending my time wisely. But I guess there's no problem with people spending time on whatever makes them happy, and if the time people put into sports makes them that happy, so be it. I think it would be better for everybody, however, if we focused more on improving our lives in the long run. Have some more discipline. On the other hand, I think it's great to be "open minded". Give everything and everybody a chance to be worth your attention. It reduces ignorance.
At least the article itself isn't too difficult to get through. From his list, number 3 is the one that jumped out at me:
"Interest in sports can expand or shrink to fill the time you’re willing to give it"
I'm skeptical about the "shrink" part. The main problem I have with sports is how swallowed up some people and society in general can be. There was a recent discussion on HN about books and how impossible it is to be able to read everything that's important within your lifetime. Now, I don't even read books (yet), and I'm certainly not a good role model for spending my time wisely. But I guess there's no problem with people spending time on whatever makes them happy, and if the time people put into sports makes them that happy, so be it. I think it would be better for everybody, however, if we focused more on improving our lives in the long run. Have some more discipline. On the other hand, I think it's great to be "open minded". Give everything and everybody a chance to be worth your attention. It reduces ignorance.
I don't know if its "cultivated" disinterest but I've found my self becoming less interested in sports as i've grown older. I was never a fan of football or soccer but the one or two sports I liked in my younger days do not hold my interest any longer. I just dont find them interesting any more and I don't really understand how so many people do.
Ick. I remember when I was younger trying to enjoy following sports teams, and caring about who won a game. I really tried. Once I accepted that I just didn't give a crap about any of it, it doesn't affect me which team wins, and I don't have to pretend to care, it was like a giant weight lifted off me.
Let me just quote Bob Ryan for a moment (a great, old school sportswriter -- another reason to enjoy sports is that there are some great writers in that field) "Literature, music, art, film, theatre and sport are ALL part of a fulfilling leisure time life. Each pushes a specific emotional button"
Why stop with professional sports? How about auto racing? Square dancing? Championship wrestling? Rooster fighting? Would it be elitist to have a disinterest in those things?
At some point you have to say... this is not something that interests me and I don't really care for the environment surrounding it.
At some point you have to say... this is not something that interests me and I don't really care for the environment surrounding it.
The level of analysis of sport in many venues is quite interesting. Take Zach Lowe @grantland on the NBA for instance: http://grantland.com/contributors/zach-lowe/
I know the type of person who has a 'cultivated lack of interest' in sports. Thing is, I don't really associate it with the 'educated elite.' Most smart people I know are actually quite passionate about professional sports.
What if I don't like sports?
The disdain I have for sports is letting an external event (like a team of free agents branded by my hometown losing) impact my happiness.
That said, I love going to a baseball game outdoors. It's like a happy hour that happens to have live action.
That said, I love going to a baseball game outdoors. It's like a happy hour that happens to have live action.
Many comments here are very informative. My takeaway here is that closing ourselves off from certain topics or ideas entirely will in turn, and to a certain extent, close us off from a certain subset of people. Just be open minded.
There's a false choice at play here. It's entirely possible not to have a favorite team in any sport, not to be part of the sport consumption culture and yet to immensely enjoy active participation in sports.
I was wondering if Ben was reiterating an old point of his. Nope, this is his same post from 2012. May be worth changing the title to highlight that.
What a dumb article. You don't have to like professional sports. There are other things in life that are worth paying attention to.
Why is this on HN?
...not sure. could make the argument that HN attracts more 'intellectuals/non-sports fans', if we're making that classification. And therefore it's a topic of universal interest here (not that that makes it topical)
worth noting though, that the separation of the two groups [educated/non-sports] and [sports] is probably related to cost of activities ($basketball < $computers or tutors) and also related to the simple probability that top x% intellectuals and top x% athletes aren't likely to overlap. Everyone in-between is then forced to pick sides/friends...and sports-talk is super social/accessible.
worth noting though, that the separation of the two groups [educated/non-sports] and [sports] is probably related to cost of activities ($basketball < $computers or tutors) and also related to the simple probability that top x% intellectuals and top x% athletes aren't likely to overlap. Everyone in-between is then forced to pick sides/friends...and sports-talk is super social/accessible.
I don't have to cultivate a disinterest in anything. I just don't care. There's no cultivation.
the idea that you're either an athlete or a nerd is such a tired old stereotype. How have we not left this behind? Raise your hand if you got a 1400 on the SAT and also played a sport in high school (for obvious reasons cross-country doesn't count).
Historically, as empires near collapse there becomes an obsession with sport, food and celebrity.
Sports is a huge business. Don't make that a part of your identity.
Cheering for Team I Hate Sports is still cheering
wow. that's a lot of comments. like. a lot.
I think professional sports are the closest we have to real-life dramas, tragedies, or even comedies, and they have profound life lessons.
I am a lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan. I grew up when they were a dynasty in the 90s, and at the time it seemed like going to the Super Bowl is something they were supposed to do every year. I cried after some tough losses.
Sometimes I get into other local teams when they are doing well, and I've even tried to be interested in other football teams, but there's no team like the Cowboys for me. I can't feel the extreme joy nor anger or sadness when watching other teams. The best I can drum up is a "that's nice". It is actually easier watching other teams because I feel like I have much less invested.
I didn't have to cultivate this interest, there is nothing logical about it. I realize this. Realizing this random illogical love in my life has helped me to look at a lot of things differently, like politics and parties. Ignoring those indirect effects (always realize when you are a homer about something) there is a great advantage if you can reach this level of interest:
Once they stopped being dominant in the 90s, the Cowboys for years have been a team that look really good on paper, people pick them to win, and then they disappoint, often times in rage inducing ways. Being slightly younger, naive, and a homer, I'd always buy in. It didn't take until the last few years that I got their gimmick and as a passionate fan am sorry to say I didn't watch a number of games last year and/or turned them off at halftime.
This year, they were picked buy experts to be very mediocre. The first game seemed to prove this. I turned if off after the 1st quarter as the 49ers were beating the hell out of them. Same old Cowboys. I couldn't help but to watch week 2 and a win over the hapless Titans. Then they went down 21-0 in week 3 against the Rams and I turned the TV off. Thankfully, my interest and a friend goaded me into turning the TV back on to watch them come all the way back and win. Week after week for the rest of the year they did this: fell behind and seemed destined for a loss, only to fight back and pull themselves to victory. And I, conditioned as I was to expect failure, continued to turn the TV off at moments, only to turn it back on and catch the comeback.
This culminated in their wild card game against Detroit. At one point they went down 14-0. Same old Cowboys. Click. Then somewhere they found fight in them and with the benefit of a very questionable call were driving for a winning touchdown at the end of the game. Now I've seen this before. Flashbacks to January of 2008 when Jerry Jones put championship game tickets in the lockers of his players before they played the Giants, a team they had beaten twice already. But the Giants (who would win the Super Bowl) came to play, and at the end of the game Tony Romo found himself driving his team down for an apparent game winning touchdown. That time it wasn't meant to be. He threw and interception which was one of those plays which thus far has defined his legacy.
Here he was in the Detroit game in a very similar situation. This time, though, he pulled it off. When he got knocked down as he threw that winning touchdown, the crowed erupted, and face down, he slammed his hands on the ground out of joy. Romo is a passionate guy, but I've never seen him like this. He knows he is running out of time, and he wants to win. As a long-suffering fan, the joy was just as great.
The Boys ended up losing in Green Bay the next week, but I've though often about why I care about football so much and if I should. I like to be in control of my life. When you love a sports team, you are at the mercy of ownership, good or bad, players, bad breaks (sometimes literally), referees, etc. Why put yourself through all that emotion when you can't do anything about it?
But really, that's life. Because as much as we'd like to think otherwise (especially the folks here which are smart, hard-working, independent, and often successful), there are a lot of things you just don't have control over in life. You can't control whether a competitor does or doesn't come along at the right time, you can't control whether a drunk driver blindsides you, you can't control who you meet or run into. Sports is like that, and sometimes it is good to take a step back, realize you can't control everything, and enjoy the ride. Sometimes you'll feel rage or sadness, but in that rare instance when a team, your team, proves everyone wrong, when it rewrites the script, when it does what it isn't supposed to do and wins, there isn't a feeling like like it. And when you see athletes who have worked their entire lives to get to a point and they finally achieve it, it is a rare feeling of empathy and pride that you can feel for a complete stranger. I saw it with Dirk Nowitzki when he won a title in 2011, and I hope to see it for Tony Romo one day as well.
Hell, for people doing startups, or just living, athletes are the perfect sources of inspiration. The pressures they face, the pride, the struggle, the doubt, all is so similar. I've personally never been a Kobe Bryant fan, but last summer I read some articles about his work ethic, determination, and attitude, and I both respected him and it inspired me to better myself.
Sports are incredibly valuable learning tools, aside from just the avenues they open up with others. And that really can't be overstated. I see too many computer-literate people shutting themselves off from others and culture. If you can't or don't connect with the majority of the population, what makes you think you can build something which will change the world? Granted, sports is just one of many avenues to connect with others, but it is a massive one, and one with lots of benefits.
Finally, if you can't just fall in love with a team, there are other things to appreciate about sports. In baseball and basketball, I often get more interested in the process of building teams than watching teams play. There's magic in watching good GMs outwit everyone else and put together the right collection of players. There's magic in watching people like Billy Beane apply a rigorous methodological approach to try to build something (The Oakland As and Moneyball). If you can't love a team for love of sport, love it from that kind of logical angle. Maybe you'll end up loving the team for completely illogical reasons.
I've said enough, maybe too much. I needed to unload those thoughts somewhere. Hope they help someone.
I am a lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan. I grew up when they were a dynasty in the 90s, and at the time it seemed like going to the Super Bowl is something they were supposed to do every year. I cried after some tough losses.
Sometimes I get into other local teams when they are doing well, and I've even tried to be interested in other football teams, but there's no team like the Cowboys for me. I can't feel the extreme joy nor anger or sadness when watching other teams. The best I can drum up is a "that's nice". It is actually easier watching other teams because I feel like I have much less invested.
I didn't have to cultivate this interest, there is nothing logical about it. I realize this. Realizing this random illogical love in my life has helped me to look at a lot of things differently, like politics and parties. Ignoring those indirect effects (always realize when you are a homer about something) there is a great advantage if you can reach this level of interest:
Once they stopped being dominant in the 90s, the Cowboys for years have been a team that look really good on paper, people pick them to win, and then they disappoint, often times in rage inducing ways. Being slightly younger, naive, and a homer, I'd always buy in. It didn't take until the last few years that I got their gimmick and as a passionate fan am sorry to say I didn't watch a number of games last year and/or turned them off at halftime.
This year, they were picked buy experts to be very mediocre. The first game seemed to prove this. I turned if off after the 1st quarter as the 49ers were beating the hell out of them. Same old Cowboys. I couldn't help but to watch week 2 and a win over the hapless Titans. Then they went down 21-0 in week 3 against the Rams and I turned the TV off. Thankfully, my interest and a friend goaded me into turning the TV back on to watch them come all the way back and win. Week after week for the rest of the year they did this: fell behind and seemed destined for a loss, only to fight back and pull themselves to victory. And I, conditioned as I was to expect failure, continued to turn the TV off at moments, only to turn it back on and catch the comeback.
This culminated in their wild card game against Detroit. At one point they went down 14-0. Same old Cowboys. Click. Then somewhere they found fight in them and with the benefit of a very questionable call were driving for a winning touchdown at the end of the game. Now I've seen this before. Flashbacks to January of 2008 when Jerry Jones put championship game tickets in the lockers of his players before they played the Giants, a team they had beaten twice already. But the Giants (who would win the Super Bowl) came to play, and at the end of the game Tony Romo found himself driving his team down for an apparent game winning touchdown. That time it wasn't meant to be. He threw and interception which was one of those plays which thus far has defined his legacy.
Here he was in the Detroit game in a very similar situation. This time, though, he pulled it off. When he got knocked down as he threw that winning touchdown, the crowed erupted, and face down, he slammed his hands on the ground out of joy. Romo is a passionate guy, but I've never seen him like this. He knows he is running out of time, and he wants to win. As a long-suffering fan, the joy was just as great.
The Boys ended up losing in Green Bay the next week, but I've though often about why I care about football so much and if I should. I like to be in control of my life. When you love a sports team, you are at the mercy of ownership, good or bad, players, bad breaks (sometimes literally), referees, etc. Why put yourself through all that emotion when you can't do anything about it?
But really, that's life. Because as much as we'd like to think otherwise (especially the folks here which are smart, hard-working, independent, and often successful), there are a lot of things you just don't have control over in life. You can't control whether a competitor does or doesn't come along at the right time, you can't control whether a drunk driver blindsides you, you can't control who you meet or run into. Sports is like that, and sometimes it is good to take a step back, realize you can't control everything, and enjoy the ride. Sometimes you'll feel rage or sadness, but in that rare instance when a team, your team, proves everyone wrong, when it rewrites the script, when it does what it isn't supposed to do and wins, there isn't a feeling like like it. And when you see athletes who have worked their entire lives to get to a point and they finally achieve it, it is a rare feeling of empathy and pride that you can feel for a complete stranger. I saw it with Dirk Nowitzki when he won a title in 2011, and I hope to see it for Tony Romo one day as well.
Hell, for people doing startups, or just living, athletes are the perfect sources of inspiration. The pressures they face, the pride, the struggle, the doubt, all is so similar. I've personally never been a Kobe Bryant fan, but last summer I read some articles about his work ethic, determination, and attitude, and I both respected him and it inspired me to better myself.
Sports are incredibly valuable learning tools, aside from just the avenues they open up with others. And that really can't be overstated. I see too many computer-literate people shutting themselves off from others and culture. If you can't or don't connect with the majority of the population, what makes you think you can build something which will change the world? Granted, sports is just one of many avenues to connect with others, but it is a massive one, and one with lots of benefits.
Finally, if you can't just fall in love with a team, there are other things to appreciate about sports. In baseball and basketball, I often get more interested in the process of building teams than watching teams play. There's magic in watching good GMs outwit everyone else and put together the right collection of players. There's magic in watching people like Billy Beane apply a rigorous methodological approach to try to build something (The Oakland As and Moneyball). If you can't love a team for love of sport, love it from that kind of logical angle. Maybe you'll end up loving the team for completely illogical reasons.
I've said enough, maybe too much. I needed to unload those thoughts somewhere. Hope they help someone.
Another benefit of following a team (I suggest the Seattle Sounders and Barcelona) is a psychic boost -- http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232425769_Understand...
> I think professional sports are the closest we have to real-life dramas, tragedies, or even comedies, and they have profound life lessons.
I think anyone who thinks this is spending too much attention on professional sports and not enough on real life: because there is plenty of actual real-life drama, tragedy, and comedy; professional sports are not the "closest we have" to those things (though there is some of all three in professional sports.)
I think anyone who thinks this is spending too much attention on professional sports and not enough on real life: because there is plenty of actual real-life drama, tragedy, and comedy; professional sports are not the "closest we have" to those things (though there is some of all three in professional sports.)
I wouldn't say it's about being "closest" to real-world, but rather that it's close enough to be useful, but distant enough that the change of perspective helps us see things differently. It reminds me of the way sci-fi can be a device for talking about today's problems in a context that's sufficiently distant from our actual world that it can help people to see things they wouldn't have seen about the immediate real-world issue.
You don't like sports. We get it. Why do you care so much that others do?
I could have phrased it better, but my reference to dramas, tragedies, and comedies was specifically in reference to the theatrical tradition of them (hence not real-life).
Unlike those, sports are not scripted, they unfold in real time. Sure, other real-life situations have this, but sports are one of the few stages where millions or billions watch and share in the same experience.
Unlike those, sports are not scripted, they unfold in real time. Sure, other real-life situations have this, but sports are one of the few stages where millions or billions watch and share in the same experience.
> I am a lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan.
Wow, I can't think of anything you could say that would make me hate you more instantly!
Wow, I can't think of anything you could say that would make me hate you more instantly!
You like watching sports. Some other guy likes Marvel comics. Another guy likes D&D. Another guy likes trains. Another guy likes Marxist literary analysis. Everyone finds something interesting in their own interest. It doesn't mean anything. Your source of inspiration is no better than anyone else's.
The thing is, sports fans form the great majority in the US and too many of them have a habit of shaming and ostracizing people who don't share their inspiration, starting from beating up the non-sporty kids in elementary school. And they have the power to do that without any real reprisals because they are the majority and the strongly enforced norm for men is that they must like sports and play them. So I'm glad for your sake that you have a source of joy and I don't care if you want to talk to other people who share that interest. But please don't bother telling me that your interest is better than other people's interests and that something is wrong with someone who doesn't share your interest, because it's part of a broader abusive pattern.
The thing is, sports fans form the great majority in the US and too many of them have a habit of shaming and ostracizing people who don't share their inspiration, starting from beating up the non-sporty kids in elementary school. And they have the power to do that without any real reprisals because they are the majority and the strongly enforced norm for men is that they must like sports and play them. So I'm glad for your sake that you have a source of joy and I don't care if you want to talk to other people who share that interest. But please don't bother telling me that your interest is better than other people's interests and that something is wrong with someone who doesn't share your interest, because it's part of a broader abusive pattern.
I never said sports was a better interest than any other. The point I was trying to make is that sports is a valuable tool like many others that allows you to connect with people and enjoy life, and the basic irrational spect of it can even have some benefits.
Part of the reason I don't like watching, say, American football is that I used to play it in highschool. Once you've actually played the game, watching other people play is kinda boring. Especially when you see what a comically capitalized affair the whole thing is.
Also, this part from the article is kind of silly:
The machoness and absence of women in the highest levels of most professional sports bothers me deeply.
Most sports are built rather heavily around the design constraints of the human body. For what is effectively organized physical conflict, the genetics favor males heavily.
Also, this part from the article is kind of silly:
The machoness and absence of women in the highest levels of most professional sports bothers me deeply.
Most sports are built rather heavily around the design constraints of the human body. For what is effectively organized physical conflict, the genetics favor males heavily.
> Part of the reason I don't like watching, say, American football is that I used to play it in highschool. Once you've actually played the game, watching other people play is kinda boring.
I've tried so hard to explain this to people my entire life, and gotten nothing but blank looks in response. I LOVE playing almost any sport, and when I watch other people running around on the field having fun my only response is "shit why the hell aren't we going to the park and doing that right now?"
I've tried so hard to explain this to people my entire life, and gotten nothing but blank looks in response. I LOVE playing almost any sport, and when I watch other people running around on the field having fun my only response is "shit why the hell aren't we going to the park and doing that right now?"
Interesting. I am the opposite. When you watch a sport, it makes you want to play it. When I play a sport, it makes me want to watch it.
Watching a professional sport bores me unless I am currently playing that sport. When I am playing a given sport, then I start watching game highlights because I can learn so much from them. It improves my game play, gives me new ideas, and is just plain fun.
Watching a professional sport bores me unless I am currently playing that sport. When I am playing a given sport, then I start watching game highlights because I can learn so much from them. It improves my game play, gives me new ideas, and is just plain fun.
I find it the opposite, and I played in high school too, but since I know the mechanics of everything it makes it a lot more interesting. For instance most people only get the gist of the game, whereas for me actually seeing what formations the offense is running and what coverage scheme the defense is using on a particular play makes it 100x more interesting than if I didn't know any of that stuff like the average viewer.
[deleted]
I've never played the sport beyond a limited-contact flag football league, but I agree with your sentiment. It takes a lot of time to really get to know the game, and if you really like the sport for what it is it's suddenly not so bad to root for a terrible team.
It is kind of a bummer that you rarely get to see all 22 on a broadcast, because the camera stays fixed on the ball carrier. It can be hard to tell if a quarterback is having a bad season because he sucks or because none of his receivers are getting open (though any sports blog will be happy to give you an opinion).
It is kind of a bummer that you rarely get to see all 22 on a broadcast, because the camera stays fixed on the ball carrier. It can be hard to tell if a quarterback is having a bad season because he sucks or because none of his receivers are getting open (though any sports blog will be happy to give you an opinion).
> It is kind of a bummer that you rarely get to see all 22 on a broadcast, because the camera stays fixed on the ball carrier.
There's precisely the same problem with soccer. Unless you're already a true expert, you'll glean almost nothing of the tactics by watching a match on TV. Go to the stadium and you can finally see things like the positioning of defenders while their team has possession.
There's precisely the same problem with soccer. Unless you're already a true expert, you'll glean almost nothing of the tactics by watching a match on TV. Go to the stadium and you can finally see things like the positioning of defenders while their team has possession.
> Part of the reason I don't like watching, say, American football is that I used to play it in highschool. Once you've actually played the game, watching other people play is kinda boring.
I find this to be the complete opposite of my experience. I never played football, but I did compete in many team sports when younger and I find my enjoyment heightened by that experience, and a high degree of understanding and empathy.
I find golf, a game even many sports fans do not watch, to be one of the most enjoyable and dramatic to watch. I think this is mostly because I play it, not in spite of it.
I find this to be the complete opposite of my experience. I never played football, but I did compete in many team sports when younger and I find my enjoyment heightened by that experience, and a high degree of understanding and empathy.
I find golf, a game even many sports fans do not watch, to be one of the most enjoyable and dramatic to watch. I think this is mostly because I play it, not in spite of it.
"The heroes of declining nations are always the same—the athlete, the singer or the actor."
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2010/09/fate-of-empires-p...
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2010/09/fate-of-empires-p...
I love sports that are one on one but couldn't care less about teams. When somebody brings up "the game", I usually respond with "the fight", and then we'll both race to cut the conversation short.
The barrier isn't understanding of sports, or even dedicating time to them. The barrier is that I'm not presented with an interesting narrative. I'm not invested in anyone winning, so it's not interesting.
Thank zeus for this article. Sports is a 4 letter word in a lot of social circles (academia, tech to a decent extent) and it usually just reeks of pretentiousness. I find myself having to be unusually careful not to bring up sports when talking to anyone in tech I don't know well, whereas I rarely have that issue outside of it.
Congratulations, you dismissed the entirety of American football as "roid rage violence". You also have an encyclopedic knowledge of internet memes, so I'm not sure I really trust your judgement vis a vis what qualifies as a worthwhile endeavor.
> Sports aren't intellectual
> Sports talk is glorified tabloid talk
Go to a sabermetrics conference and prepare to be baffled. Nate Silver got his start as a baseball writer.
> Sports are overly violent
So is GTA 5. Watching sports doesn't make a person any more violent than playing video games does. Sports-related violence is semi-frequent and deplorable, but blaming sports for causing drunken boorish behavior is just like blaming Doom for Columbine.
Most professional athletes are well aware of what they're getting into these days [1], so I don't buy arguments about "protecting the athletes" as a reason to ban sports entirely either (augmenting the rules to decrease injury rates, sure, absolutely).
> I'm not going to pretend to like something I don't like
That's fine. Just don't be a pretentious asshole about it. I can't even begin to count the number of times a conversation has navigated to sports one way or another, and some jackass decides to one-up the group by going on a 5 minute monologue about how ignorant they are of sports because they're too busy with "intellectual pursuits".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JMsWtObHhE#t=30s
Congratulations, you dismissed the entirety of American football as "roid rage violence". You also have an encyclopedic knowledge of internet memes, so I'm not sure I really trust your judgement vis a vis what qualifies as a worthwhile endeavor.
> Sports aren't intellectual
> Sports talk is glorified tabloid talk
Go to a sabermetrics conference and prepare to be baffled. Nate Silver got his start as a baseball writer.
> Sports are overly violent
So is GTA 5. Watching sports doesn't make a person any more violent than playing video games does. Sports-related violence is semi-frequent and deplorable, but blaming sports for causing drunken boorish behavior is just like blaming Doom for Columbine.
Most professional athletes are well aware of what they're getting into these days [1], so I don't buy arguments about "protecting the athletes" as a reason to ban sports entirely either (augmenting the rules to decrease injury rates, sure, absolutely).
> I'm not going to pretend to like something I don't like
That's fine. Just don't be a pretentious asshole about it. I can't even begin to count the number of times a conversation has navigated to sports one way or another, and some jackass decides to one-up the group by going on a 5 minute monologue about how ignorant they are of sports because they're too busy with "intellectual pursuits".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JMsWtObHhE#t=30s
I understand, label nerds as pretentious and jackasses, because they dis your favorite subject. Welcome to the nerd club. You think its tiresome having somebody try to make you look stupid for liking that stuff? Imagine living it, from the age of 12 through 25. Its fucking exhausting. So give techies a break already.
"This happened to me growing up so now I get to do it to you"?
What a wonderful message for the children.
What a wonderful message for the children.
How about, you've done it all your life, so your whining when it happens to you comes off as hypocritical? What a wonderful message...
> you've done it all your life
Me personally? When did I do it?
Me personally? When did I do it?
SOrry, that should have been in quotes.
It seems that a certain number of sports fans like yourself get automatically butthurt if someone doesn't play along with them. You're not entitled to that. And the majority of the US has been strongly shaming anyone who doesn't share your interest for their entire life, calling them gay. So I even understand why someone might make a point in public of how they are NOT ashamed to be someone who was never into sports. It's their fucking right.
If someone on the internet says "roid rage violence" I am going to ignore it, not get outraged. You can cry me a river about how badly bullied you are because of hearing that phrase, poor you.
If someone on the internet says "roid rage violence" I am going to ignore it, not get outraged. You can cry me a river about how badly bullied you are because of hearing that phrase, poor you.
Can we agree that internet memes, video games, and watching sports are all not inherently harmful but are still pretty much a waste of time?
The same could be said for recreational sex. Long live time wasting!
It's called being a snob. The disdain for working class culture among academics was part of the reason I choose not to pursue a formal higher education. I suspect this overt snootiness keeps many gifted working class kids from participating in higher education.
I grew up working class and was a boxer. I love Ice Hockey, Football, UFC, NASCAR, Motocross, and heavy metal, but I am also an academic and an intellectual. Many highly educated people have told me so, I just don't have the paper to prove it.
My oldest son is highly gifted earning math test scores putting him in the top tenth of one percent and placing 1st in regional Math Masters competitions. He also plays ice hockey so he interacts socially with the 'jocks' and the 'brains' preferring the company of the 'brains.'
Most of his 'smart' friends show contempt for sports which is a social problem since he is an athlete.
When a kids says, "Hockey. Meh. It is a bunch grown men with sticks chasing a black piece of rubber around a sheet of ice" he is saying in effect "What you love is obtuse and low brow and I don't care how that makes you feel." And that is just rude.