Right, but you are (or seem to be) making judgmental remarks on whether other people’s subjective rationales pass muster in your personal opinion. Which is a quite a different thing.
I just think that’s a pretty meaningless statement, and in the case of the OP was deliberately loaded to jointly belittle two things he doesn’t subscribe to. Which (I repeat) is why people have been pointing out that all sorts of things in our lives (nearly everything, in fact) have no objectively rational basis, which nonetheless does not preclude people from having perfectly sensible subjective rationales behind their various choices. We have them, you have them; the problem here is that you seem to be expressing disbelief that sensible humans could possibly appreciate a particular thing that you don’t understand.
I think it’s also possible that you think people are far (far, faaaaaar) more invested in football than they actually are. You do realise we know it’s just a game, right?
If “I don’t see how that is rational, please explain” is judgmental, then I guess I’m judgmental, but in that case this debate is impossible without judgment being passed.
Point out where I did this. Point out where I said sports fans are any less sensible than any other human. Point out where I “belittled” sports or sports fandom.
Not that it has anything at all to do with the debate, but do you deny that there are plenty of people who take it far far faaaaaar too seriously?
No, it’s the bits where you seem to imply that your emotional reactions (love, reacting to murder in the paper) are more valid, despite having had it pointed out that they’re every bit as irrational. It’s the way you’ve ignored pretty much every reason presented to you and just kept stating that it’s “irrational” and that you don’t understand it. People have made an effort to try and explain to you, and you’re just not listening. That’s why you’re coming across as dismissive; you seem uninterested in even trying to understand why people enjoy something that you don’t, preferring instead to heavily imply that there are far more worthwhile things to be doing.
Of course not, but as you say that is utterly irrelevant. People take all sorts of things too seriously, and it has almost nothing to do with what those things are.
To me, religion seems the definition of irrationality. Not only is there no evidence for God, but some religions directly contradict each other.
Yet believers change their behaviour (and try to change others), spend money + time, get passionate and even commit acts of violence. But all for nothing!
At least a football fan gets to watch a real game of football. I do it because:
I like to see exhibitions of skill
I like the atmosphere, especially when a goal is scored
All of these contribute to why I like to go to church on Sunday morning --I snipped the bit about scoring a goal, but I could insert something about especially when the pianist plays some good gospel-style music in its place.
I’m not going to argue with you about whether my religous beliefs are rational, but my reasons for selecting this particular church and for showing up frequently are rational, and they aren’t neccessarily all that different than your reasons for attending a football match. Now certainly, I’m more likely to see an exhibition of skilled piano playing, or hear a skilled vocalist or a skilled preacher than see someone with good ball-handling skills, but I’m not sure that this is much of an argument that sport fandom is more rational than religion. Nor am I convinced that I get nothing out of my hour or two on Sunday spent at the church–even ignoring the theoretical spiritual benefits.
I do claim that it is rational to have a negative response to reading about a murder in the paper. How you came from this to me claiming that my emotional reactions are more valid is beyond me; I’m sure you react to murders as well.
That I don’t understand it is irrelevant and I didn’t even mention it until you had already assumed that I didn’t. Apparently you believe that not being a sports fan is a prerequisite for thinking that sports fandom is irrational. I never said any such thing.
I do claim that the reasons presented are irrational, and as far as I can tell, you’re agreeing. You have said that no-one can show what chains of reason they followed and so forth. So what are we arguing about?
Let’s take this slowly: I don’t care why you enjoy sports. It’s not what I’m trying to ascertain. It could be as rational as maths and I might still not get it. The only thing I’m trying to discuss is whether sports fandom is any more rational than religion, but your claims that I have “belittled” you and your interests, called you less than sensible and so forth keep getting in the way.
I imagine it had something to do with the way you presented your reactions to a newspaper as being rational, implicitly by contrast to a football fan. I don’t think such a reaction is rational in the strict sense you seem to want to apply. We react to murders through empathy (irrational), fear (irrational) and so forth. We react to football through historical interest (irrational), shared experience (irrational) and so forth. None of it is cold or logical, but by making the comparison you appear to want to make value judgments about which is more worthwhile. I know football is relatively trivial, but that doesn’t stop me investing something in it. It’s fun, and in my opinion acting to maximise my enjoyment of life is rational. Do you disagree?
I most certainly did not! I explained why any given person’s reasons might not apply to another person, and that’s a very different thing. I tried to illustrate this earlier, but here goes again. Let’s take a sort of game theory example. You are presented with 10 boxes. You have no idea what’s in them, but you are told that they all contain a reward of varying value. You may choose one, and keep the contents, but cannot change your mind. If you pick none, you get nothing. Which is the rational course of action?
[ul][li]Pick no box?[/li][li]Pick a random box?[/ul][/li]Remember, you have no reason to pick one box over another. Quite clearly, the point that I am trying to make is that it is not irrational to choose one box, even if there is no particular reason to choose that one. Furthermore, you’ve been given several (subjective) reasons why we might actually perceive one box to be more valuable than another before choosing.
I am trying to oppose what I perceive as the singling out of one thing I enjoy (football) as “irrational” when I believe it to be no more so than any given aspect of the human experience. You (as far as I can see) are trying to ignore any attempt to point out this enormous subjectivity involved. I am trying to argue that “rationality” has absolutely no meaning when it comes to pretty much anything where emotions, shared experience and preference are involved. You’ve completely ignored any of the analogies people have made to (e.g.) career choice, preferring instead to express continued incomprehension.
Essentially, I am arguing against your apparently absolute perception of “rationality”. I dispute that any such standard exists. IMHO, you are horribly conflating the notions of subjectivity and irrationality. One makes a value judgment; one does not. That’s why you’re getting a somewhat tetchy response. (It’s also because the World Cup tends to bring people out of the woodwork who express sniffy disdain about gasp! enjoying something so trivial as sport. This may be you, it may not, but there you go.)
If I implied that the reactions were rational because they were mine, I apologize, but I really can’t see how my post could be taken that way. The reactions are obviously just as rational (or irrational, as the case may be) no matter if it’s you or me who’s experiencing them.
I don’t agree that fear of a real danger that brings physical and mental pain is irrational.
Key word “appear”. I have made zero value judgments in this thread and would very much appreciate it if everybody could stop projecting.
No.
[quote]
Which is the rational course of action?
[ul][li]Pick no box?[/li][li]Pick a random box?[/ul][/li][/quote]
Pick a random box, and, indeed, I said rather early in the thread that there is a rational reason to root for a team.
I only single it out because it’s the topic of the thread. If the thread were about something else, I’d be talking about that instead.
I agree that sports fandom is no more irrational than many other things, and I have never claimed otherwise. All I’ve said is that it is as irrational as religion.
I’m not “trying to ignore” anything.
Of course it has. I’m red hot for this girl sitting across from me right now, but I know better than to pursue it as it would last approximately five minutes and then I’d have to meet her all the time and it’d be a drag.
If I’ve ignored any analogies, I can’t find them now.
Interesting (possibly outside the scope of the thread, but since mr.jp doesn’t seem to want to participate anyway, let’s go wild). Are you essentially saying that rationality doesn’t exist?
Which makes a value judgment?
Hey, I’d be happy if my work environment didn’t turn hostile as soon as there’s a sports event bigger than a Little League game going on.
Your church analogy fails to fulfill the primary allure of sports, which is head-to-head human competition. Maybe if your minister had to win a footrace with a couple priests and a rabbi in order to speak from the pulpit, then I’d buy into the comparison. But there is nothing competitive about church. There is nobody to root for or against.
Granted, the social aspects of sporting events can be mirrored by the social aspects of church, but that’s merely a similarity between identical secondary elements.
Really? What is the rationale, then? Is the report in the paper detailing the first ever murder in your area? Because then I’d agree it’s rational to take note of it. But if it’s detailing the 12th murder of the year in an area that statistically produces 30 murders per year, how is your emotional reaction rational at all? That murder should have been expected, and should not change future expectations. So why the fear?
You were presented with several rational reasons why rooting for a specific team is a rational choice: they may be your local team, or maybe your brother is a fan of their arch-rival, maybe their playing style reflects your own set of values. You not only failed to recognize these as being rational reasons, you explicitly declared them irrational. Seems to me you are indeed trying to belittle sports fans.
Here’s some rational reason to be a sports fan:
You can appreciate the upper limit of athletic skill; the pinnacle of human physical ability.
Controlled violence satisfies an instinctive bloodlust in a safe and controlled manner.
The sense of community fostered by sports is inclusive.
Sports can be a non-threatening way to connect with people, either in small talk while on line at the convenience store or involved conversations with your son or father.
The drama of sports is real; the escapism sports provide is the same that movies or books provide, but it’s not canned or predictable. Who foresaw Zidane’s headbutt?
Here’s some rational reasons to be a fan of a specific team:
They are your local team.
They are the team of an area you have a tie to; you were born there, or used to live there, or a buddy moved there, or whatever.
They are the rival team of somebody you are close to. (Smacktalk is fun.)
They are the team your parents root for.
They have a playing style you identify with.
They recruit players in a manner that you respect. (They look for local players, they make “character” a primary consideration, they believe in giving “problem players” a second chance, etc…)
You find the ownership to be admirable. (Don’t sell/move the team to another market, don’t go for cheap money-grabs, put the wellfare of the sport or league ahead of the team, etc…)
You find the players admirable. (Doing lots of charity work, not out partying all night, out partying and still plays well on game day, whatever.)
I’m not saying that it’s irrational to not be a sports fan, I’m saying it’s not irrational to be one. And you seem to have confused “arbitrary” with “irrational.” They are not synonyms.
With minor quibbles about “nothing competive about church” and “nobody to root for or against”, your objections are mostly valid. However, that’s based on an assumption that I was not making in the post you responded to. glee’s post focused on the social aspects of sporting events, so that’s what I focused on.
glee didn’t mention the allure of head-to-head competition, and if he had, I probably would have allowed his post to stand without challenge.
Sorry, I guess it was a poor joke. What I meant was that you posted the things I wanted to say, before I got around to it. So no point for me in posting then.
First, some thoughts on the word “irrational”. When I use it, it applies if you believe in something that is false. Or rather, something that a non-indoctrinated person would conclude is false if he thought about it. As such, religion is irrational. Arguments that its not irrational, because people can derive pleasure from it, even though its not true, I don’t agree with.
Ellis Dee makes a good summary of the sports sides’ argument.
Now. If you are a sports fan you believe its very important for you whether your team wins or loses. If it is not actually important to you, then that would be an irrational thought, even if it gives you pleasure. (According to my use of the word.)
I think most of the arguments can be compared to rooting for a private company, like supermarket or something. Why should that be different? Isn’t it just that more people root for a soccer team? For instance:
They are your local team.
My supermarket is local, why don’t you root for the fiscal budget there? And wouldnt you find it irrational if someone did? Wouldnt you be thinking: “why does he care so much about the profit this supermarket makes, just because its in his neighbourhood.”
-They recruit players in a manner that you respect. (They look for local players, they make “character” a primary consideration, they believe in giving “problem players” a second chance, etc…)
Companies might do that too
They have a playing style you identify with.
This one, I agree with. Although I think its a very weak reason in itself.
As for the whole “it gives a sense of community” or “we will go out partying if they win” thing. I think the same argument goes for religion.
About accusations that Im trying to belittle people interested in soccer. Well, I guess I am. But I really don’t mean any offence. Your are not hurting yourselves or others by this. I just find it a little odd.
I agree with the bit I snipped where you said that hiring practices alone are a weak reason to be a fan. I haphazardly ranked them in descending order of relevance. Note that the “pinnacle of human athletic ability” was the primary reason I cited for being a sports fan in the first place, which is not found in any counter-examples yet presented. For me, even that athletic prowess alone isn’t enough, because I find that pitting that ability against other humans who are just as accomplished and actively trying to thwart your efforts in head to head competition to be 99% of the appeal of sports. That’s why I’m such a big fan of the NFL and NHL; those guys really go to the limits when it comes to head to head competition. The NFL in particular, where the sheer number and types of battles is staggering. But I digress.
You supermarket example is an excellent one for my position, I think. Rooting for the local Mom & Pop store to succeed instead of a generic, impersonal national chain store? That’s probably one of the most rational things in the world. The people who own and operate those Mom & Pop stores are local residents who infuse their establishment with their own unique charm and usually have exceptional levels of personal relationships with their customers. Growing up as a kid, I vividly recall having family accounts at the local grocery store and drugstore, and could easily walk in, be recognized, pick up what I need, just tell them to “put it on our account,” and walk out the door without any hassle or worry. And this was as a preteen. I’d say that was an ideal situation, and being for the success of those type of stores over the bland, impersonal no-customer-relationship-having chain stores? Quite rational.
As far as sports, I’m guessing you find the Olympics to be irrational as well. One thing to keep in mind is that sports are entertainment, albeit the most unpredictable type. Do you also find book clubs to be irrational? What about friends going to see a movie together and talking about it at a diner afterwards? Is that irrational? Sharing a common joy is quite normal; to call it irrational is being needlessly belittling.
Is being a fan of a certain director any more rational than religion? Basically, are you saying that every form of entertainment is just as irrational as religion? If not, how are sports any different? If so, why are you singling out sports?
No, entertainment is not irrational. Neither is watching the olympics, neither is watching soccer.
That which is irrational is caring a lot about who wins, if there is not, well, rational reason to do so.
You can definitely watch soccer to see the athletic prowess. I wouldn’t consider that irrational.
Now, back to the reasons for rooting for a particular team.
I definitely agree. If you had a similar relationship with the players on a soccer team, It would be rational to root for that team. However, the point I was adressing, was rooting for a team solely because it is local. That would correspond to picking a random shop nearby, like the nearest 7-11 for example, following its income, and really hoping that it earns a lot.