It's like those studies that can detect decision making a split second before the person is consciously aware that they've made the decision. It's usually presented as "'you' don't really make the decision", as if that person exists apart from their brain.
I think the revelation is that the decision people make is the negative one, that the affirmative one is the default and the negative one is the one which requires conscious effort.
There's quite a few things about our brains that might seem obvious, but are actually quite counter-intuitive in practice.
For the non-soccer fans: Michels was the trainer who invented the Total Football playstyle and was named coach of the century by FIFA in 1999. Although I just learned from Wikipedia that the above quote is taken out of context, I always thought it was an insightful one: football is ritual warfare. And as the article suggests, we're probably better off for its existence, because those tribal instincts are still in our DNA, and they need to come out one way or the other.
And I say that as someone who really dislikes football, partially because of the tribalism.
"Panem et circenses" is hardly a new concept.
And 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly.
The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. There are arguments for America's cup, but that's a different kind of representation. Those are 1870's vs. 1850's respectively.
So it's really kind of a new thing, and Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games are definitely created in part to build fraternity and collegiately between nations etc..
I think it's also fair to question the term 'violence' because maybe it's really a matter of 'competition' at a physical, visceral level, i.e. 'dominance'. But it's a good point.
My point, exactly.
> they didn't represent anyone.
Of course their did. People had their favorites. Community had champions.
Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country.
Anyway, the point is moot. It doesn't change the basis of the mechanism: entertaining the mass so that they divert they aggressiveness.
Aside from the legal requirement that they be citizens of the country they play for, and that once a player represents his country in a competitive match, they are bound to represent that same country for the rest of their lives, barring some extraordinary situation where the country itself breaks up or ceases to exist.
Oh I so dare you to go to Brazil and say Neymar doesn't matter. Actually, don't, I don't want to be (indirectly) responsible for your maiming...
People have a strong illusion their connection is real
But the fact remains that they don't run after the ball themself. They don't make any effort in this competition. They don't even have any personnal relationship with the players.
I don't deny it's fun.
You should have fun.
But it's no more real than a movie.
See: mother + newborn.
That said, you're right that it wasn't "international", but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old.
Nations are, nationalism and nation-states (which are different but related phenomena) aren't.
No, it's not, though some current national identities are. The idea of Israel as a nation (distinct from either a state or regional identity), for instance, is at least as old as the Old Testament.
Or better yet, invent football and do the same.
Nationalism didn't exist at the time, but ethnocentrism certainly did :)
International cricket pre-dates that. The first official international was between Canada and the United States in 1844, with 10 - 20,000 spectators. The K.A. Auty Cup is still played from time to time.
Perhaps a case could be made for cricket helping prevent nuclear war, as India and Pakistan manage to play each other in the various forms of cricket, though there isn't any love lost between the fans.
I guess we have civilized quite a bit.
Yeah that never happened.
That said, medieval jousting for example had what amounted to a multi national sports. It's just the nations where tiny.
That's absurd. Google "Olympic games" and then Google "peloponnesian war".
Ongoing international games as we understand them are a new phenom, dating back to the mid 19th century, and then only a few games.
The modern Olympics are not that old.
There were almost no such games for most of antiquity until late into the Enlightenment.
The ancient Greek Olympic games lasted for close to 1200 years. Unless your definition of ongoing is longer than that, I think they qualify.
The ancient Olympics carried a truce enforced by Zeus, unless your definition of international doesn't include "independent political entities who engaged in war" I think they qualify.
Though I do hear about conspiracies involving fixed games and about FIFA corruption from time to time, I imagine that they've done a lot more good for the world recently than the UN has.
Sports are in general associated with some meaningful global events. The Olympics recently demonstrated this fact w/r/t North Korea.
No, they have not! I am not sure by what metric one can compare FIFA and the United Nations, but I don't think you you are familiar with the breadth of the UN's work. Selected achievements from their results page :
-Every year we mobilize about $7 billion in humanitarian aid to help people affected by emergencies.
-Every year we assist over 34 million refugees and others fleeing war, famine and persecution.
-We vaccinate 40% of the world’s children, saving 2 million lives a year.
-In 2011 the UN will provide food to around 90 million people in 73 countries.
-In the past few years, the UN has expanded legal international rights to indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, migrants and their families.
FIFA is merely better at marketing...
I wonder if FIFA has ever been discovered to be running hugely corrupt wings like UN's WIPA which keeps trying to stuff some form of ACTA/SOPA/PIPA down our throats.
I wonder if FIFA has been found to ever profit from the rape and sexual abuse of minors. Minors, who descend from some of the most war-torn and horrific places on Earth.
7 billion annually and look how little they get done each year. Capitalism is much more responsible for Africa's and Asia's escape from poverty than the UN is - and that's a rather low bar.
I laugh at the idea that the UN, and not the charities they force to go through them, is responsible for saving 2 million lives per year. I wonder how many millions they let die each year.
In terms of global politics, FIFA is rather benevolent and yet they foster ongoing positive international relations benefits. The UN is, at best, malevolent, and I am dubious that their positives outweigh their enormous negatives, not to mention their negative externalities.
Surely, surely you’re joking?
That is an entire Wikipedia page about a corruption case only involving tax evasion , following an investigation by the IRS.
This is the FIFA , which decided, completely non corrupt of course, that Qatar is the best place to host a World Cup. Some people follow through on this anecdote with reasons as to why that’s a worse place to do so than actual Hell, but I prefer to prompt you to sit back a moment and think about that. Qatar. Forget about Russia: Qatar. For a sporting match. In summer. Qatar.
For context, these were the final bids for 2022: South Korea, Qatar, Japan, Australia, U.S.A.
FIFA is not corrupt? Sepp “football is politics” Blatter’s FIFA?
Surely you’re joking?
But if AlphaGo and Google Duplex have had a ML/AI child and they're being tested on HN I'm pretty excited about it!
I got some unbelievable memories though. I honestly do not believe some of them.
> And the rules don’t apply as well to casual fans, Wann cautions. “This effect is most prominent among those who are most intense. In order to really reap the well-being benefits of fan identification, it needs to be a central part of your overall social identity.” The biochemical aspects of fandom only serve to reinforce those good feelings.
It’s not just watching sports, you need to be fully invested in the experience in the first place. I think the same would be true to anything we truely engage, like a chess or shogi live streams, or really anything we intimately associate with.
I was going to say, maybe my brain doesn't work like it's supposed to... but maybe I just never got into it.
Football, for example, is a bit different. There’s more of a guarantee of action.
I didn’t fully appreciate football growing up until I played. Now I’m so zoned into little details...
Someday if I decide when its time to get kids, I want to be in a position where I can have as much time as I want for the kids.
First link from searching "why kids like unboxing videos":
It was really expensive, and I already had a background in automotive work and woodwork to some degree, and a decent IT skill set, but damn, machining is really gratifying.
(Yes, I do watch professional gaming myself)
I see the "lack of physical skill" argument a lot and my typical argument against it is endurance and mental performance. Esports players at their peak train for 8+ hours a day and can compete for 4+ in some longer events. Doing anything with your body for that long takes physical and mental conditioning.
I also see a lot of traditional sports detractors saying "What's the point of just watching someone play the video game, seems boring" and it really blows my mind how much of a disconnect there is.
Whereas I feel like the same can hardly be said for traditional sports. I don't see how you gain any strategical insight into the game of soccer by watching the world cup, at least on the level that a normal viewer could implement.
I KNOW exactly what is going to happen, I KNOW I'm watching a recording, yet even when making an effort not to, I still notice my body is reacting and effectively re-living the experience. Spooky.
Just as an example, I’ve had nightmares after this spring’s Real vs Juventus Champions League match which saw the Italians get eliminated in the 92nd minute after a questionable penalty call (I’m a Juve fan) and to this day my heart still feels a little contraction, so to speak, a little “what could have been?”, when thinking about how the Swedes equalized us, Romanians, in the QF of the 1994 World Cup after an error from our goalkeeper
(if he hadn’t committed that error we would have faced the Brazilians in the semis, meaning a literal dream come true for us). There have been 24 years since then but the feeling is still inside of me, and I think it will stay with me until the day I’ll walk off this planet. Sports and caring about sports can be both one of the most beautiful and one of the most painful experiences in one’s life.
My first esports (Dota TI internationals in seattle) outing really felt like I was actually playing. I could appreciate all the moves that were being made even if I couldn't actually do it in front of a computer.
Because esports is mostly done also sitting on a computer, there's also less of a "barrier" than say in watching soccer. You aren't actively moving while watching soccer
"Research into the link between domestic abuse and the football has shown that reports of domestic abuse increase when the England team win or lose a football match and that the instances increase with every World Cup tournament."
> bodily motions made in a usually unconscious effort to influence the progress of a propelled object (such as a ball)
It can be used to create a sense of ownership by encouraging the reader to 'experience' the product being sold, just like you're more likely to buy a product after playing with it in a store.
The effect is weak but it certainly does exist.
Edit: also biochemistry, biochemical...
next up, you lose weight by watching people run. although i think believe someone has shown that already.
Edit: this is not that study but, along the same lines .. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998709/
pretty tiny sample though
Except you didn't actually burn the calories...
Fortunately haven't been forced to do sport since I was 14.