Some Say Boxing Is A Sport
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, February 5, 2026 17:08
VIEWED: 4330
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:Why, yes Jack! I have!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You haven't proven me wrong either.
You posted, a lot of erroneous bullshit and strawman arguments - like I was calling for banning football, or talking about what kids do on their own time, or that you had quoted 'science' (still waiting for that 'science'), or that I'm somehow privileged ...
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
if you ban all football until kids are 18
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you take football and other sports you take issue with away from them
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yanno what though. Good luck to you in tearing the system down.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
(But we're not talking about things kids choose to do on their own because it's fun.) We aren't? Says who?
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't know what the name of it is, but there is science behind it.
I illustrated the "science" behind it in the rest of my post.
Like pretty much anything else, there is a science behind it.
or the science behind why folks find these things so entertaining either.
Also see the previous post where I mention whatever reward* giving, neuron* firing* pleasure mechanisms that come with rooting for your favorite team or athlete while watching your favorite sport.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Maybe then, we'll find out about that "science" you claim I'm making up that you didn't bother looking into. Yanno, when millions of people don't get that daily or weekly hit from their football games and various other sports, maybe we'll just see more aggressive behavior in the streets to burn off all that extra energy instead.
Until then, keep on living with the blinders on, and worrying about the stupid kids.
Quote:Not only did you post them, you re-posted, and reiterated, and doubled down on more than one!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Most of us don't get the privileges of the academic good life that you had growing up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I stand by them. And I'm right.
And football isn't going anywhere.
And this argument is pointless.
yada, yada, yada
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jack, you're as closed-minded to facts as any liberal or conservative when it disrupts your favorite narrative.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What narrative is that?
What horse do you think I have in this race?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, speaking of the science of human behavior: I've been watching a mini-series on PBS called 'Why We Hate', but fwiw I've only watched two (or was it three) episodes that have aired so far (which they could have easily condensed into one imo). Yeah, I know - it's on TV and it's on PBS. Still, I don't take anything at face value.
Moving on ...
They outlined the advantage of living in groups that control an area, and that is access to resources.
They outlined the difference between two chimpanzee species which (they claim) are physically indistinguishable: Pan troglodytes (regular chimps) and Pan paniscus (bonobo chimps). As they state the great geological northward arc of the Congo river separated two populations of the parent species into a more resource-poor area north of the Congo (Pan troglodytes) and a more resource-rich area south of the Congo (Pan paniscus). They claimed that, Pan troglodytes having to contend with other groups for territory / resources in a more resource-poor area, is what leads to male group on male group aggression (and a more hierarchical internal society overall - info acquired from elsewhere); while the opposite is true of bonobos, which have virtually no aggression either within or between groups (and a peaceably-maintained internal female hierarchy - info acquired from elsewhere).
(One thing that's unanswered is why bonobos live in groups at all, since an abundance of resources and capable babies - can cling within hours of birth - seem to make group-living unnecessary.)
Having established, as they seem to believe, an evolutionary reason for self-identified groups to adhere internally; but also to both contend individually and as groups with other groups, they go on to equate troglodytes' behavior with human TRIBAL behavior; but where tribes are established by lore and custom, not physical birth troop or area.
They cite one research study where adolescent boys were arbitrarily separated into 2 groups, each group was instructed on how to set up their own camp (erect large tents, set up campfires etc), and the two groups were required to compete in a series of contests to win one prize at the end; and that under those very specific conditions they started to engage in actual hostility (stealing each other's supplies, vandalizing each other's sites, etc). At the end, the researcher demolished those group identities by sabotaging their one water supply, such that all the boys had to work together to fix it.
They then go on to examine the psychology of group v individual identity and claim that humans have an evolutionarily-derived need to have a group identity (which once again they illustrate with male extreme soccer fans as prototypical and somehow representative of overall human behavior). (I also want to point out that when it comes to specific examples - eg war, soccer hooliganism, etc, they've so far focused exclusively on males as active participants.) They illustrate how the assumed group identity is always positive and justifiable even when it's at deep odds with reality (as an example they use the Israeli 'victim no more!' identity which is used to paper over Palestinian genocide); and of course the out group is everything awful. In addition they say that assuming a group identity often displaces (some of?) a individual's identity; and that 'out group' individual identities are mentally replaced with group tropes.
So far, what they seem to have established is that male group identity / hostility is established under a very particular set of circumstances, that may or may not be evolutionarily relevant.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That you're the smartest person here and always right.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What narrative is that?
What horse do you think I have in this race?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
you're the smartest person here and always right.
Finally.
Thank you.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See?
I told you!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to the topic
(above) The show 'Why We Hate' seems to have established that under a very particular set of circumstances people (males) will form groups and engage in hostilities against each other.
This is very similar to the behavior Jane Goodall found when she went to study chimps (regular / troglodytes) in the jungle as a newbie grad student. Before then a lot of work had been done in zoos and laboratories, but nothing had looked at their behavior in a natural setting. iirc the story she told, for the first year or two, she heard chimps all around her in the jungle, but never got sight of them. In order to see them, she decided to put a pile of fruit in the clearing near her camp, which worked to bring the chimps into view. And she spend the next year or so recording all sorts of aggressive / dominant / submissive behaviors.
And then it occurred to her that she was seeing NONE of the affiliative, gentle, nurturing, friendly, or playful behaviors that people saw elsewhere, like in zoos. She realized that the kind of chimp society she was witnessing could not possibly raise generations of young, it was far too violent and took away far too many resources from females and young to be sustainable 100% of the time (ie it couldn't be the basic pattern of group behavior). And she understood that having a really high-value bounty in one easily-dominated spot was actually triggering all the aggressive / dominant / submissive behaviors she'd been so carefully studying, describing, categorizing, recording, and quantifying. And she further realized that in nature, in the jungle (being non-seasonal), fruit doesn't ripen all at once on each kind of tree. It ripens here and there, fruit to fruit, tree to tree, species to species, scattered around, all during the year.
So she scattered the fruit around instead of putting it in a pile, threw out all her notes, and started fresh. And what she saw was as if she was witnessing a different species.
So in this instance, a particular set of circumstances created a particular set of interactions.
When I think of the experiment with the 2 groups of boys in a camp, I mentally tick off how many things have to be in place to cause (US) kids to behave like that.
And it runs parallel to the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment. A very particular set of circumstances have to be in place to get those results.
So, now we know what circumstances triggers what kinds of behaviors in "people". (all? males? US-raised?)
So far, my first objection to the show, which I've mentioned before, is that they seem to be taking a very LIMITED subset of people - western / males / small fraction with extreme behavior / highly specific (and artificial?) circumstances - and extending their thinking to mean "HUMAN" nature.
Is it a human potential? Well, yes, it is. Just like the super-aggressive male chimps dominating the fruit pile in Goodall's inadvertent experiment was a chimp potential. But it may not be 'natural'.
(Just a personal point of interest for me - looking at Goodall's initial inadvertent fruit-pile experiment - it seems as if the draw to stay in a group no matter how pathological and dangerous it became was extremely strong. She didn't recount any chimps who appeared to say 'well, fuck this shit, I can just go to that tree over there and get fruit of my own'. Either they didn't attempt it or the male(s) had become super-dominant in that circumstance and were herding breakaways back to the troop.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder if the writers of these articles are aware that there is a fairly popular female MMA.
https://www.tapology.com/rankings/33-current-best-pound-for-pound-fema
le-mma-fighters
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME