> Dancing is just a game we play, like everything else we do. Once you see it like that it all makes sense
IMO, this is just not true.
There is something really special about synchronized action with other people. Be it marching, singing, chanting, etc. It engenders trust, builds community, and generally builds relationships in a way that I don't think anything else does. This isn't a strictly good thing either - my observation is that dancer relationships tend to be... unstable.
And partner dance is one of the most developed and interesting method of synchronized action that people have created[1].
It's fundamentally a different sort of activity to listening to poetry, playing basketball, attending a lecture, or writing a CRUD app.
---
1. Orchestra/band rivals dance here - certainly there is opportunity for much greater scale at high levels of complexity. Of course, you have to give up touch to get that.
>It engenders trust, builds community, and generally builds relationships
But that's what competitive games also do. You cannot play basketball without trusting, collaborating, communicating with your teammates. Those are the pillars of teamwork. Also synchronicity is core to them, so much that researchers have taken noticed (https://www.popsci.com/nba-basketball-synchronous-movements-...).
> But that's what competitive games also do. You cannot play basketball without trusting, collaborating, communicating with your teammates. Those are the pillars of teamwork.
Sure. But it's different. In a team environment, you build trust with teammates through competence.
That's not really what I'm talking about. Synchronous action doesn't need competence. Church hymn singing is famously bad. But it helps build community anyhow.
The stuff they mentioned - marching in step, etc isn't basket ball. It's military parade, basically. And it has the effect of building trust.
It's great that basketball teams have figured out how to leverage that to make teams better, but that doesn't mean that the same thing will happen with lots of drills.
> It's fundamentally a different sort of activity to listening to poetry, playing basketball, attending a lecture, or writing a CRUD app.
I disagree. Team sports (playing basketball) are just as much about choreography and also the connection between dance and all other activities you mentioned. The feeling of being part of a "well-oiled machine" is the sense that the choreography is successful. This feels good because most of the time a group of people wouldn't care for doing what you expect. It's affirmation.
> I disagree. Team sports (playing basketball) are just as much about choreography and also the connection between dance and all other activities you mentioned. The feeling of being part of a "well-oiled machine" is the sense that the choreography is successful. This feels good because most of the time a group of people wouldn't care for doing what you expect. It's affirmation.
I've done team sports and all I can say is: it's not the same[1]. When I'm on a team, we're all trying to achieve the same goal, but we aren't one body. There's no sense that everyone is acting as a single being. Beyond that, I guess, I can't really give much of a logical argument - it's just something that I've experienced. And others may disagree, which is fine too.
My own personal theory is that there is no innate way the body can tell what is self and what is other. And synchronized movement is a sort of hack that tricks people into partially accepting other people as self. But that's just a wild theory I have and has no real backing that I know of.
---
1. I suspect that high level military drill probably would engender the same feelings, but I suspect that that's not what you meant when you mentioned "team sports".
Your comment clearly shows your bias. Amateur orchestras are a mess just like amateur sports teams. Nobody has a common vision and each is mostly left to their own devices.
Now switch to professional ensembles and professional sports teams and the level of coordination and complicity is exactly the same.
