Soccer - Is it as irrational as religion?

[Cardinal]

@mr. jp

Religion has no rational basis. But it appeals succesfully to some other aspect of our psyche.

I’ll be sure to keep that in mind.

:rolleyes:

[EllisDee]

@mr. jp

That which is irrational is caring a lot about who wins, if there is not, well, rational reason to do so.

If you had [any] 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.

I’m not buying your position at all.

Being a sports fan is akin to joining a surrogate tribe, which is appealing in our fragmented modern society. I would classify that as rational.

Choosing which team to root for is just as rational as picking which color shirt to buy after you’ve selected a style; whatever appeals to you on any level is the one you pick, and because it appealed to you in some way, that was a rational choice.

Caring a lot about who wins or loses is rational because that is the nature of being a sports fan. Being a fan of a team and not caring whether they win or lose would be irrational, because that runs counter to what it means to be a fan in the first place. The whole point of being a fan of a specific team is to root for them, which means you want to see them win, which means you care whether or not they actually do win.

I’m reminded of the George Carlin bit where he talks about how he worships the sun. Whenever people scoff at him, he points out that at least he can see the sun. Similarly, you can see a sports team. No leaps of faith are required; the team is comprised of actual human beings that you can see and hear, and who are held accountable for their performance on the field. So in the sense that faith in the unknowable is not required, it is more rational than religion. Accountability is an added bonus on the rationality meter.

If your whole argument boils down to the fact that you think caring about something is irrational, then have at it, but don’t single out sports. People were bummed out when the Beatles broke up; was that any more irrational than me being bummed when the Giants shit their pants in the playoffs last year? People cared when Americans landed on the moon; was that irrational? People care when a movie by a director they like bombs at the box office; do you consider that to be irrational?

I have yet to see you make a compelling case as to how or why soccer – or any other sport – is irrational. All you are doing is asking us to refute your initial assumption, which is that both sports and religion are irrational. To those assumptions, I say: Cite?

[GorillaMan]

@mr. jp

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.

Take a look back at my earlier reply, when I talk about what local support actually constitutes.

[mr.jp]

@GorillaMan

No, the international nature of modern squad selection has had no effect on the group identity provided to a city or town (or cultural or sectarian subsection).

e-logic is very right, that it’s not arbitrary. I support Ipswich, not because they win everything, nor because I have any memories of winning any cups, but because it’s part of my home, part of what I’ve grown up with. By going to matches, I’m actually joining up with about a fifth of the town’s population, and although “sense of community” is a really naff phrase, there’s nothing, including religion, which unites so many people. Even people who don’t like football still want to know the score, still want Town to do well.

Now, to play it safe, I’ll repeat again. Its not irrational to go and watch soccer. Only to care about who wins. (And that might be somewhat rational too, I started the discussion to find out.)

So here is a list of the arguments you make, that it should be important for you who wins:

• The team is local. The players live in the same area as I do.

If the team is so local that you meet the players in your daily life, or you know people who know the players, I agree with this one. Otherwise, what do you really have in common? Just being from the same area doesn’t make them more deserving to win.

By analogy, if you lived in Germany in 1914, would you join the war, and hope Germany wins, just because you lived there?

• It’s tradition

So is religion.

• It gives a sense of community, and unites people.

Religion

• Many people believe it’s important who wins.

That many people do something, doesn’t make it rational.

[glee]

@Eureka

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.

It’s certainly true that there are possible social aspects to Church going. You can enjoy singing, make new friends and perhaps get a reliable baby sitter.
I suppose my point is that you could do all that without religion. Meet friends at a tennis club / pub / discussion group.
So I still claim that the heart of religion is irrational belief, but I accept that many churches are pleasant places. Some alas, are not.

[GorillaMan]

@mr. jp

• The team is local. The players live in the same area as I do.

No - the other fans live where I live, they’re people I’m friends with, and with whom I have many other things in common. The history of the club is intertwined with the history of my home.

By analogy, if you lived in Germany in 1914, would you join the war, and hope Germany wins, just because you lived there?

Ummmm, if I were German, then almost certainly yes. Why would I not want my nation to be victorious?

Note that I’m talking about my home team, which will always hold that place, wherever I may end up living in the future. It’s not just about simple geographic distance. (Spending four years in the shadow of Maine Road gave me a certain affiliation for Man City, but never would another team take first place.)

• It gives a sense of community, and unites people.

Religion

Sense of local community, tribalism, in a way that religion does not.

[Wallenstein]

@GorillaMan

Sense of local community, tribalism, in a way that religion does not.

Exactly… regular attendence at a football game is 5,000-50,000 which more closely matches our tribal group sizes of the past

It’s hard to identify with a religion of 6 billion members, but the 37 regular Ipswich fans can get to know each other much better.

[GorillaMan]

@e-logic

It’s hard to identify with a religion of 6 billion members, but the 37 regular Ipswich fans can get to know each other much better.

And we get shorter queues at the bar

[mr.jp]

hmm, you seem to be of the opinion that tribalism is rational.

That is, supporting some group just because they by tradition is “your group”

I disagree on that.
Reasons not to support German warfare:

• It’s a war, people die. What does it matter if some country or another gains some territory compared to that?

• Germany started the war. So you are supporting the aggressor. (I realise the situation was complicated, still, it was Germany who first declared war.)

• If you actually join the war, then the potential personal cost for you is huge.

[Wallenstein]

@mr. jp

hmm, you seem to be of the opinion that tribalism is rational.

That is, supporting some group just because they by tradition is “your group”

I disagree on that.

There’s solid evolutionary reasons for favouring a tribe - humans work better cooperatively, so it’s hard-wired into us.

Reasons not to support German warfare:

• It’s a war, people die. What does it matter if some country or another gains some territory compared to that?

If the aquisition of additional resources enable you to flourish, then it’s definately worth it.

Germany started the war. So you are supporting the aggressor. (I realise the situation was complicated, still, it was Germany who first declared war.)

Begs the question. Why is supporting an aggressor irrational?

If you actually join the war, then the potential personal cost for you is huge.

But the overall benefit for your genetic neighbours outweighs your personal cost.

[mr.jp]

@e-logic

There’s solid evolutionary reasons for favouring a tribe - humans work better cooperatively, so it’s hard-wired into us.

Exactly.

That is my thoughts on why people favor a “tribe”.

But saying that it’s rational because evolution caused it, is making the teleological error. It’s akin to saying that it’s our purpose in life to get many children, or something like that. Evolution just happened to be that way because it worked well. You cannot conclude morals or rationality from it.

[Wallenstein]

Morality and rationality are not the same thing.

Kantian thought aside, you can rationally wish to act immorally… so I’m not sure where you’re going with that?

[GorillaMan]

@mr. jp

hmm, you seem to be of the opinion that tribalism is rational.

As I said earlier…

@GorillaMan

How it fits into your rational/irrational definitions, I’ll leave to you.

The gregarious nature of tribalism is something deep-rooted, and driven by emotions, so no, it’s not rational. All I’ve been trying to do is clear up some of your misconceptions about football support as being some abstract idea, and to explain how closely related it is to individual and group identity.