People follow celebrity drama and sports stats but not political drama and election stats

glennmagusharvey

In other words, people following useless info and news rather than stuff that actually matters to them.

Inspired by a post by @Crake.

Vorpy

I'd rather have people be right when complaining about Jersey Shore than be wrong when complaining about politics.

Some people just cannot follow politics correctly for their life.

glennmagusharvey

And they deserve to be glared at by their peers for saying foolish things about politics more than they do for saying foolish things about the Yankees or the Red Sox.

Vorpy

Yes, but wrong media decisions reflect less worse on the world than wrong political decisions.

Think about it. John McCain being a white supremacist/anti-human rights activist is worse than Lady Gaga being a white supremacist/anti-human rights activist.

glennmagusharvey

Yes, so people should care more about the former than the latter.

Vorpy

But they don't have the before-hand knowledge to do so. It takes some actual brains to participate and understand politics, as opposed to listening to music and watching TV.

Tnu1138

my preference is actually to follow politics as it's more interesting and of greater concern to me.

DonZabu

Fuck politics.

Tnu1138

I think that was Clinton's Policy.

Vorpy

Fuck ponitics.

Tnu1138

I wonder how Equestrian Politics works.

glennmagusharvey

"Ms. Pie, was the debt-ceiling compromise a good idea, or should there have been a 'grand bargain'?"
"aeiou"

"Ms. Pie, do you support the right of gays and lesbians to marry?"
"aeiou"

"Ms. Pie, how fast should our troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan?"
"aeiou"

RedEyedAbyss

Have to side with Vorpy on this one. When not properly educated in the ways of politics (like learning not to use stupid "arguments" like ad hominem), such knowledge becomes more than useless. It becomes outright detrimental to political discourse.

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,
In other words, people following useless info and news rather than stuff that actually matters to them.

I can understand what you mean about celebrity drama, but I do not think that sports stats and news are useless. I think that sports, like most any leisure activity, are a good way to pass the time and have fun. Being a fan of a team, tracking a player's growth from college all the way to the pros, or being well-versed on sports history seem like fine hobbies to me.

Plus, some aspects of sports are directly connected to political/social issues. Jackie Robinson and the desegregation of baseball, player unions, and the like all connect back to such issues. I believe that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com demonstrated that statistical knowledge of baseball can actually translate into a successful career analyzing political polls as well. Sports also offer an opportunity for people to come together in a way that politics may not (i.e. national teams can help unify the county). Granted, I have some bias here, but I think the points are arguably legitimate.

Having a lot of knowledge about sports does not seem like a bad thing to me. Knowing sports facts at the expense of being totally ignorant of how your government works is a different story. Obviously I would not condone that, but in any event, I would not call sports knowledge useless or say that it is not stuff that actually matters to people.

People can follow both and I dislike the idea that somehow sports is to blame for a lack of interest in other areas (not that I believe anyone really has argued that in this thread). I will admit that in some cases it might be, but I think you could say the same thing about video games, TV shows, and such as well.

glennmagusharvey

I was actually thinking about exactly that last thing you said, even as I wrote the original thread.  In other words, that the same could be said of other complex hobbies, from Magic the Gathering deckbuilding to the minutiae of the Star Wars setting to the episode-by-episode familiarity with an animé series.  They're all similarly "useless", and on that I totally agree with you.

And yeah, you do have a point, that it's not entirely useless.  At the very least, it's a useful conversation-point and common interest for socializing, and that's not to mention things like how much of an intellectual activity it might be to think through player stats, recruiting, and on-the-field tactics (especially in carefully-planned sports like American football).  And you're right, there are often social and political issues tied in with this.

Not to mention that really intense sports nerds are sometimes looked upon as "dorky" the same way role-playing geeks or otakus are.

That said, what I do wonder about is why I've heard some people complain that, say, elections/polls/fundraising stats are really geeky but also be extremely aware of every detail of a celebrity's life or every player's stats on several professional-league sports teams.  To me, the skillsets applied seem to be pretty similar--lots of information tracking, trend abstracting, and such.

Maybe one could say they're already "busy" with the stuff they do track.  Or maybe they find political data to be less appealing to track, having been convinced to track sports or gossip data through social expectations.

Ponicalica

I've mostly given up on politics because I've lost my ability to think that anything I do in that arena will actually have a net positive effect on the world.

RedEyedAbyss

"Or maybe they find political data to be less appealing to track, having been convinced to track sports or gossip data through social expectations."

There's also lies, damned lies, and statistics. It's really annoying how much it's constantly spun towards someone's agenda. Not that other geeky stuff isn't, but honesty is much more important in this field.

^I've learned to shut up and listen more since there is so much I don't know and saying something based on incomplete information will make me look like an idiot.

glennmagusharvey

My advice for people who don't know much about politics but want to make sense of what they hear:

1. Listen to everyone.
2. Trust no one.

By 1, I mean don't dismiss what anyone says without reason.  Hear them out; you may be able to ridicule them more, to plagiarize their great ideas, to learn their skills of spin, or at the very least you've just exercised your patience.

By 2, I mean that you should always ask yourself who could be trying to make what happen, and why.  Most conspiracy theorists just get stuck at the "what" question and forget about "why would they ever bother with that in the first place".  Don't make that mistake.  Ask yourself why people do what they do, what makes them vote one way or the other.

Another nice suggestion is to think about what things you care about, and then asking yourself who is more likely to serve them.

Tnu1138

That's a very good Policy Glenn.

glennmagusharvey

See, Tnu, I think my comment about point 2 is relevant to some of the stuff you do.  Sure, we moderators could suddenly up and ban everyone else from this forum.  It is certainly within our capability to do so.

But why would we do that?

It would just be counterproductive.  We want this forum to exist so that lots of people can have conversations about lots of different topics.  Banning people left and right would directly contradict that goal.  That's why we wouldn't do it.

We're all capable of doing lots of crazy things.  The reason we don't do it is because we don't have a reason to do it.  Yes, I can take a banana and smash it on my thigh.  But I'm not going to do that, because I have no reason to do so.

----

A little addendum on the "trust no one" thing:

What I actually mean is that you shouldn't trust people merely at face value, unless you have no other choice.  But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ever trust anyone.  If you already know someone, and you know their motives and personality well, then you know how and when to trust them.  For example, I trust my friends' judgement on a lot of things.

Also remember this: As for politics, just because you can't trust someone doesn't mean that you shouldn't work with them or you shouldn't support their side.

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,
Not to mention that really intense sports nerds are sometimes looked upon as "dorky" the same way role-playing geeks or otakus are.

That said, what I do wonder about is why I've heard some people complain that, say, elections/polls/fundraising stats are really geeky but also be extremely aware of every detail of a celebrity's life or every player's stats on several professional-league sports teams.  To me, the skillsets applied seem to be pretty similar--lots of information tracking, trend abstracting, and such.


I agree that what you described seems like hypocritical behavior. I also find it odd when someone talks about how he or she is "such a nerd" because that person actually is knowledgeable about say philosophy or chemistry. I feel like using negative phrases like that makes it seem like being really interested in a subject is a bad thing when it really is not. I kind of wish people would just stop using labels like "nerd" or "geek" to begin with, but I realize that is not likely to happen.


Still, it might be worth noting that some pretty big fans of baseball, including baseball writers, sometimes criticize those who focus on statistical analysis, so even among sports fans I would say there is a bit of a division there.

Abyss_Worm,

I've learned to shut up and listen more since there is so much I don't know and saying something based on incomplete information will make me look like an idiot.
Yeah, I definitely think that is a reasonable mindset and it is worth it to try not to comment on stuff too much if you do not have much expertise there.

Tnu1138

My fear is less to do with motive and more to do with means for the most part. It's not so much that you have motive its that you have means. I'm of the disposition that it is not the abuse of power that should be the first sign to be cautious about but the power to abuse. So I really don't trust anyone with power.

glennmagusharvey

^ Well, unfortunately that would logically lead you to distrusting almost everyone, since humans naturally organize themselves into groups with leadership structures, in order to make life easier.  Since this would basically be paranoia, I think that's the wrong approach, and a better approach would be to ask whether someone would want to abuse their power.  The way you put it right now seems to be like keeping everyone away from knives so that no one ever has the chance to go crazy and stab someone else, without acknowledging that people can use knives for productive purposes (i.e. food preparation).

@LouieW

> I also find it odd when someone talks about how he or she is "such a
nerd" because that person actually is knowledgeable about say philosophy
or chemistry.

I've actually generally used the following definitions for nerd, geek, and dork:
* nerd: someone with unusually high amount of knowledge specialization in a particular field, with an emphasis on being knowledgeable.  If otherwise unstated, this is presumed to be one or more typical academic subjects, such as science, social sciences, philosophy, and literature.
* geek: someone with unusually high amount of knowledge specialization in a particular field, with an emphasis on specialization.  If otherwise unstated, this is presumed to be computers, programming, and other computer-related topics.
* dork: someone with poor social skills, generally implying inappropriate meekness rather than inappropriate aggressiveness.

Other possible meanings, such as a "nerd" or "geek" as having poor social skills or "dork" having specialized knowledge, are counted only as secondary implications, not denotations of the word.

At least, that's how I use them.  I know there are many other definitions out there, so I just think that some standardization is in order.

> Still, it might be worth noting that some pretty big fans of baseball,
including baseball writers, sometimes criticize those who focus on
statistical analysis, so even among sports fans I would say there is a
bit of a division there.

You're right about this; this division applies within people who follow politics, too.  A lot of people who are into politics are interested in certain issues/positions/policies, and correspondingly very concerned about their party's candidates supporting their pet positions.  As much as I don't like dealing with them (since they easily make for endless arguments on issues), I nevertheless ought to appreciate their contributions to our team (i.e. us progressives/liberals/Democrats), since purely strategizing for my team could lead to rather empty victories if I neglect the real-life consequences of politics and policies.

(After all, one of my criticisms of the current Republican Party is that they are too focused on gaining political power and enacting policies that would aid their electoral prospects, and paying too little attention to the complications of actually governing.)

Tnu1138

that doesn't quite work. Power will be abused at any given time That's why it can't be allowed ot concentrate it needs to be bound and watched and oftentimes replaced at regular intervals. Periodic revolutions if you will.

glennmagusharvey

If power WILL be abused, then us mods would probably have had you and various other people banned long ago.

Nothing says that power will be abused.  Just as nothing says that a kitchen-knife will necessarily be used to stab someone.

The decision to abuse power is a decision on the part of the person who wields it.  Power can be wielded properly, y'know.

glennmagusharvey

Why are y'all following the ratio of the Troper Tales elimination crowner like election geeks watching returns at an election night watch party?

Deboss

In other words, people following useless info and news rather than stuff that actually matters to them.

You realize that the stuff they follow is important to them.  Otherwise, no one would follow any entertainment or artform ever.