| Each social subgroup or culture maintains its identity through shared cultivated interest in some areas, and cultivated disinterest in others. The degree to which this interest or disinterest is realized is determined by how much an individual wants to be part of a group. Wine appreciation, which is associated with high status, attracts rather clunky attempts at cultivated interested. Religious group detractors cultivate a far more antagonistic disinterest. No one likes beer as children but because people want to fit in so much with the "fun" group, they cultivate heavy interests and tastes for it. Sports for the most part is tied down to location. A small levels it associates you with your school, and at higher levels it associates you with your city, state, or even country. Groups often compete against other groups for resources in a 0 sum game. Sports passion can actually be used to measure the level of "loyalty" a person has to a group. The most loyal people will put his or her group above other groups to the detriment of others. (This nepotism is actually necessary for stable groups. We treat are friends and family this way. Also, if a morally superior alien race of 10 trillion decides the destruction of earth is a necessary evil, meritocracy requires we die willingly) I don't care much about the state of the homeless in San Francisco. It makes me sound cold but it's the truth. To me, I don't understand why I should care more about this than the homeless in some other state, or the starving and dying in some other country. People don't like these "free-agents" because they seem completely selfish and base everything on cold logic and meritocracy than warm immediate empathy. They can't be trusted to do what's right for the group, in fact, they may just jump ship when some other better group shows up. Sports fanaticism is a reasonable measure of this. |