The whole notion of “your brain thinks …” is a common interpretation of fMRI studies, but I think it is not very accurate or useful. It contains the idea that what your brain does is somehow separate from what “you” are thinking and doing. In practice, what we see in fMRI pictures is just the what the current thinking and activity looks like in the brain. So even if you saw the same patterns of activity for people watching and playing sports, that wouldn’t mean that the brain “thinks you are playing”, it just means that your thinking might be similar during both activities. As others have mentioned the article does not reference the title, so this is a comment on the title only.
> It contains the idea that what your brain does is somehow separate from what “you” are thinking and doing
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.
>can detect decision making a split second before the person is consciously aware that they've made the decision.
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.
Which is not very profound. The thought that looking at a ball being kicked and kicking a ball activates similar neural pathways sounds incredibly obvious.
One might assume that is the case, but human beings assume a lot of things that are dead wrong. So while you might have an assumption, it's a pretty good practice to check and see if your assumptions align with reality.
There's quite a few things about our brains that might seem obvious, but are actually quite counter-intuitive in practice.
This lines up well with McLuhan's revelation that the search for identity is usually correlated with violence [0]. By recognizing organized sports as a "highly-organized form of violence" (his words) you can start to see the corollary.
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[0]. 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.
I don't think there's any particularly good reason to believe that giving tribalism an outlet through sports is healthy. It might as well be that giving tribalism an outlet leads to more tribalism. Kind of like how expressing emotional anger might make you angrier[0]
Yeah people don't die. But there's a chance that energy gets dispensed through other forms. I mean there is so much money in sports. There is so much money in just exerting dominance. So much to gain. Notoriety. Plus, I can't even begin to imagine the mental destruction that goes on in these players. Depression, Ego Inflation to the point of psychosis. Why can't we transcend domination and go back to play?
Gladiators are 2000 years old, moreover, they didn't represent anyone.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"who are you" implies I should have some special status to give my opinion.
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.
You mentioned Olympics but you missed out on the original Olympics which were very much all about that international (sort of as they were city-states) competition with a truce set up to allow for a relatively safe event.
No, the whole concept of national identity is very recent, starting from early 1800s for some parts of Europe. Longer than that you had tribal factions or regional identities and that is it.
> No, the whole concept of national identity is very recent
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.
which era are you refering to? ancient greece was not a unified state. the common denominator what the city. Athenians were clearly not considering themselves like belonging to the same group as Spartans.
Medieval jousting and single combat had international tournaments for hundreds of years. From before The Hundred Years War in the 1300's through to the 1600's at which point the events started morphing into what would be recognised as modern equestrian sports.
>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.
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.
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.
This isn't that crazy of a concept, to me. FIFA does achieve rather stunning results, given its breadth.
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.
Edit:
Sports are in general associated with some meaningful global events. The Olympics recently demonstrated this fact w/r/t North Korea.
I imagine that they've done a lot more good for the world recently than the UN has
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 [1]:
-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.
The UN is clearly the better marketer, because it needs to work much harder to justify its ongoing "good" for the world.
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.
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.
Qatar.
FIFA is not corrupt? Sepp “football is politics” Blatter’s FIFA?
I remain unconvinced that FIFA has done more damage to the world than the UN. The kind of corruption written about here is child’s play compared to what atrocities the UN have committed.
The U.N. is way better at marketing than FIFA could ever dream of being. You’re assuming that all those things would not have been done if the UN didn’t exist. The good things done by the U.N. are a consequence of its funders. If the UN had never been founded other organisations would have been to do the jobs the UN does now. If the UN collapsed tomorrow the associated humanitarian organisations would rebrand and continue.
I haven't skateboarded in more than a decade, but I've noticed that if I walk by a good looking handrail or concrete ledge, my brain still automatically starts picturing 50/50 grinds, different tail-slide combinations, and more. I didn't play football in high school, but I have to imagine it is something similar that continues on.
I skated for most of my youth and have the same thing going on. I was very happy when someone from my area won SOTY also. I don't really see the same magnitude of fandom during SLS ever occuring. Sometimes people really hate Nyjah or really fan boy for Joslin. Maybe we'll see regional skateboarding teams in the future, but for now we can enjoy skateboarding purely being about the talent. The Olympics will definitely test the waters for this.
There was a time when I was downright obsessed with co-op armed robbery video game Payday 2, and even months after I stopped playing, I could hardly enter a bank lobby or art gallery without starting to "case the joint".
> 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.
Like politics (at least in the US). The similarities between fanatic sports fans and fanatic political party 'members'/voters are quite great. Voters generally want their 'team' to win, even if they know nothing substantial about the candidate on the 'team' they are voting for.
Similarly, I think that to enjoy watching baseball, you have to care about the outcome. It’s a game of anticipation. If you don’t care, it’s like gambling with Monopoly money. It just doesn’t matter.
Football, for example, is a bit different. There’s more of a guarantee of action.
Isn't that the reverse effect? I could never watch football (soccer) as a child - why would I want to watch other people having fun when I can go and do it myself! Invariably I'd respond by going out to play [with a] football.
Let's be fair. Even if those videos weren't there the chances of most people investing 15k on the hope of sticking to learning a complex skill are slim.
From the other side: watched the videos, bought a ton of stuff to have my own machine shop. Now the videos are even more relevant - it’s the little things that mean so much. (Like the fun tricks to know something is parallel or square or the different ways to measure something).
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.
As both a traditional sports fan and esports fan I agree that it can invoke the same responses.
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.
I don't think there should even be a debate about what's nobler, purer, or whatever for physical vs mental, athlete vs nerd. There is something that seems to be pervasive in all forms of competition, and that is domination. We've all felt it if you have played any sort of competitive game. Basketball to call of duty. That feeling of helplessness, or that rush of just straight up beasting. And if you can harness that domination, there seems to be an avenue for money. Soccer, COD , Halo. Competition has a tendency to funnel money.
>can compete for 4+ in some longer events.
Dota's TI2 had a weird schedule where winner of lower bracket had to play 2 Bo3 and Grand Final at the same day. And that team won the tournament!
I used to watch tons of Starcraft, but I feel like at least half the reason was to find inspiration for new strategies and playstyles whenever I got bored of playing standard. For example I pretty much never watched the matchup between the other two races I played.
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.
One thing I have noticed is when watching helmet-cam footage of my own rides off-road here in Borneo I get tensed up, hyper-vigilant about the terrain, angle of the bike, gear and revs etc.
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.
I think it’s more than just a combination of happy vs unhappy, I can personally confirm that the testosterone buildup from watching a sports match of a team you really care about (even on tv) is very much real. But, just as the study says, you need to not be just a casual watcher, you need to be “invested”, to have a real “feel” for the game.
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.
There really should be a comparison between both traditional sports, and eSports.
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."
Ah! That's why I have no affinity for sports. Never played much. Basketball is just 10 guys running up and down the court, almost always making a basket. Yet for my friend Dean, he's leaning and jerking in his seat, experiencing every moment. Plays a lot.
Eh, I play a lot and still don't particularly care for watching most of the time. At least not enough to be invested enough for a season. I'd rather play than watch, though oddly enough I do enjoy watching Counter-Strike (which I also play, though not nearly to the same level I got with sports)
After 10 years of coaching youth sports and observing parents, I think this has something to do with 'mirror neurons', the ability of our brain to watch, learn from and empathize with others. Just like you have an immersive effect with a sci-fi movie and empathize with the characters and feel their plights, so do sports fans. When it's your kid playing of course, it's intensified. Of course, many are just straight up living vicariously through their kids.
I read a paper more than a decade ago about monitoring simian brains. They noticed (I think it was by accident) that when a chimp watched another eat an ice-cream, the same areas of the brain 'lit up' as if the chimp itself was eating. It makes sense when you think about how invested people can get in their favourite characters in TV and film.
I wrestled growing up and did some grappling. When watching MMA matches for years i could not sit still once they hit the ground. Was like I was working through the movements I wanted them to make. Would drive my wife crazy sitting beside me. It was all subconscious... usually just tensing my muscles and leaning a certain direction plus my hands would get clamy. My wife would have to point out to me what I was doing and i'd try to control myself lol
The basic concept has been known to copywriters for a long time.
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.
It appears twice in the article, along with the words neurochemicals and neuroscience. Thank goodness clippy isn't in charge of rating scholastic merits.
In soccer you often see the coach standing on the side of the pitch trying to do an imaginary heading of the ball when one of his players has a clear opportunity to score, as if he's playing himself. Our brain is funny sometimes.
Both studies were of groups as a subset of larger groups. That is, these fans were not individuals home alone. I'm curious to know how that might effect their body's reactions.
No, because “brain” and “muscles” are different things. In fact, it's the opposite, it's a way to satisfy a desire which would reinforce health and weight loss, without actually reaping any of the benefits.
If I recall it was about weight lifting and mentally visualizing the lifts in tandem with actual exercise. Pretty sure just thinking by itself did nothing. So, it was three way comparison (lifting alone, visualizing plus lifting, and just visualizing).
What does this really contribute to the conversation, besides some holier-than-thou attitude about not participating in sports for whatever pseudo-intellectual reason there may be?
I used to play football (soccer, not hand-egg) a long time ago. When watching football, I still see my reflexes, especially on my left foot, getting into overdrive when some player is about to kick a ball without much warning.
the article is not about this kind of activity. it is about testosterone and brain activity related to winning, etc. hard to read it fully since it randomly goes on about random things.
It's specifically about fans though - you have to be absolutely fanatical about the sport. If you're bored to death you're not into the sport, so you don't get the same effect
