Are You Not Entertained? Physical vs. Intellectual Conflict
I tweeted this yesterday and ruffled some feathers based on the replies:
To clarify, I don't care what consenting individual adults do for money. I'm not against sports (though the aches in my body sometimes suggest I should be). I was a pole vaulter for 8 years, 4 at the collegiate level.
What I do care about is what passes for "entertainment" within the human species. Read Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature to learn how not so long ago people used to put cats in bags and burn them for "entertainment." Hangings were a family event. Torture was far more common along with slavery. At least today we try to pretend slavery isn't going on so much, but don't look too closely at the prison industrial complex or you might realize it still is.
The point remains that our circle of empathy has expanded. We care about wellbeing because we've moved higher up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. When I see millions of people on social media talking about a fight, I have to wonder, is this much different than the Roman Colosseum—just more bread and circuses for those who long to be distracted?
I get that we're tribal creatures (which I think is our shared enemy), but I also think we can and should evolve. What if instead of meeting those primitive, competition-loving desires with physical acts of violence, we turn instead to competing intellects? What if we looked to Edutainment?
With that in mind, here's an example of what I prefer.
Milton Friedman was an intellectual prize fighter, TKO'ing people left and right with his mind, not his fists. Watch this video to see what I mean:
If someone says "the government should..." what they really mean is, "I don't think those people over there are doing their part and so we should threaten them with violent force until they do what I think they should do." Often, sadly, the actual result of these "solutions" are not analyzed in much detail.
The perception that "something is being done" becomes more important than actual action by individuals desiring to improve wellbeing.
At the same time, individualist voluntary thinkers like myself can also become blind to data outside our own ideology. Every problem becomes something we can blame on government. That becomes its own confirmation bias to overcome in order to see reality as it is and take proper steps to improve wellbeing.
So what are we to do? I think we should continually work to improve our epistemology and data collection via the scientific method. We should engage philosophy, improve our understanding of ethics and morality, and refine our pragmatic understanding of what wellbeing actually is. We also have to consider timescales beyond our immediate needs. Wellbeing is a measurement with a time-axis. Too much short-term thinking will lead to long-term despair.
So, no, I'm not against those who want to entertain themselves with sports or boxing or UFC fighting. I'm just looking to a future where, I think, we'll consider this primitive (and possibly detrimental) entertainment. I think we can level up, evolve, and do better. I'm just stating my opinions.
What do you think?
Very complex topic to think about, it's for me a fundamental question if mankind can survive in the long term or not. With the primitive animal like behaviour with all the irrational emotions which exists in everyone of us whether you are a simple worker or an academic we are always at risk to lose our existence and our freedom. Bread and circuses were always a valve for people to withstand the ordinary life of work, eat, sleep and an insurance for the ruling class to maintain their power. But i think for the long term such systems cannot survive because knowledge and education are growing constantly in all social classes thanks to the information age.
We're building a huge common brain, everybody is connected via internet with freedom of choice to learn every day. But the great beauty of all the possibilities, the freedom is not recognized by everybody or many people. Freedom of choice is a high value and i think too many people choose a low route just for satisfaction of simple needs bounded to helplessness and habits like Brian Tracy said, just to don't bear the responsibility which is often recognized as a burden not a chance for freedom for many. Too many don't question their lifes and so i think sports, head to head fights like in the colloseum remain a valve to many people who decided to live in slavery but i think also a game against boredom for pure joy for they who are ruling others.
It's burned-in our brains, in our evolution i think. It ignites animal instincts we can't release otherwise and if we were not using our huge brains to take control of ourselves we were all in bloody battles i think, we would release all the pressure of life within such primitive ape like behaviour and would follow our animal instincts. The entertainment in huge arenas or by just watchin TV is the valve for releasing pressure today like in the past. It protects our community from greater harm as the fringe groups do today. For they it's not enough for example to shout out loud in the football arena to the winning team, they need beating other people and using such events to follow their lowest instincts. If i see when hundreds of police officers, helicopters are necessary to control such events than i'm really concerned of our community, not just from the tax side which is bad enough. I live in a relatively small town and sometimes such events occur and i drive in the train with these violent people, observing their behaviour and ask myself what they are thinking if they drink beer after beer, how they achieve such mindset, what are the real drivers behind for each single human being to act like that?
Basically i can't say it's good or bad, i'm no judge for other people. I wrote in an article why i hate watchin TV but without a mainstream adoption of recognizing the great opportunities of freedom to choose another route we need bread and circuses and if i do that conscious just because i can and want and not as valve for pressure then it's also freedom of choice and a sign that we're still more like apes, myself enclosed and far away from a higher level of consciousness.
Each of us make decisions with his fuzzy logical thinking each day, driven by emotions. Even the most logical thinker or who thinks he is will decide based on a complex emotion. That's how we build by nature i think and that's also a reason why we have these huge circuses like the Superbowl because somebody or a group of people decided it would be great to have this megaevent and they are right people love that so much.. just a few thoughts from my experience.
Evolution is an ongoing process that does not have an end point. We have evolved and continue to do so with each new generation. It appears that you are looking for an evolutionary jump towards a more intellectual standpoint. I tend to agree with this mindset as well. However, major evolutionary changes typically take place when a species is introduced to a new environment and new set of challenges that need to be solved. Individuals that demonstrate an adaptive ability to overcome such challenges become desirable and their genes tend to be propagated. Humans have basically mastered the current environment so physical adaptations likely have slowed down tremendously. Now, if humans ever colonize Mars we would see major evolutionary changes taking place rapidly due to humans being introduced to new environments. In such a scenario we would likely see major differences between Earth born humans and a Mars born humans after several generations. In regards to an intellectual evolution though, I think the question is - what evolutionary advantage is there to being highly intelligent? There are advantages of course, but do they stand out when compared to other advantages? We could speculate that social skills as an adaptive trait out weigh intelligence at this point since humans are a social species. Entertainment appears to be very social in nature which may be one reason why it remains desirable (I'm speculating). In order for intelligence to truly stand out as a desirable adaptation which is then propagated among the gene pool, we would need problems/challenges in our society that are worth fixing, which require intellectuals to solve and which the general population recognizes as being important. In such a scenario, the intelligent individual can shine and their genes would advance. However, in our world today, society largely ignores the worlds problems (climate change, ocean pollution...etc) and opts instead for cheap entertainment and materialism. We live in a world in which our basic needs are met, jobs are largely meaningless to people and individuals therefore have no real purpose in life. To combat this we tend to focus on materialism and entertainment. So individuals who portray themselves as extravagant entertainers (celebrities and athletes) are desirable.
I'm with you - I hope that we can move towards a place where intelligence is valued, but that seems like it will be a slow process.
I use "evolve" as shorthand for improved consciousness and actively working on the top rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (Self Actualization). In many ways, I think, natural selection evolution no longer applies to our species. We control our environment so are we now under self-directed evolution?
Yeah I assumed that it was a play on words and I believe that I understood your overall message. Sometimes I just like to hear myself talk so to speak haha or to see where a conversation will go.
I agree with your point of view. Its hard to say if natural selection still applies to the human species and in many ways evolution is self-directed. One small example is cesarean section births. In many cases c-sections are completely unnecessary, yet they take place anyway and for any number of reasons. However, they do alter the course of our natural evolution in that mothers and children survive childbirth when they otherwise would not have. I am not implying that this is a bad thing, I am merely pointing out a fact. There are many examples like this as well, in which human intervention influences the natural course of evolution. Perhaps we need a new evolutionary theory beyond natural selection to explain our current evolutionary process?
On another note, a concept that I find interesting is the question of "what is natural? and similarly should any sort of human intervention be considered "unnatural?" For instance, altering the human genome, is that unnatural? Human beings are a part of nature regardless of how complex our behaviors, inventions and ideas become. Regardless of how complex we are, we are an animal just like any other. Therefore, can our behaviors ever truly be unnatural?
Side note: I've obviously strayed from your original topic so feel free to disengage from this conversation if its uninteresting. Like I said, I just like to see where thoughts will go.
I've thought of that also. What if materialistic determinism means even what we think is "directed" by our "choice" is still being driven by evolved impulses like any other animal? Interesting to consider.
Yes that is interesting to consider.
I have also been thinking about the original topic and what you said about Maslow's hierarchy of needs (self-actualization). Self-actualization according to Maslow, occurs when an individual reaches their highest potential and it is associated with self growth and meaning of life among other things.
Some could argue that athletes who are at the apex of their careers, in fact reach a state of self actualization. For instance, they strive to achieve their highest potential and since "purpose" and meaning of life is a subjective concept created by each individual's mind, perhaps the meaning of these athletes lives is simply to be the best they can be at what they are good at (sport). For them, maybe their purpose in life is to be a top athlete. As such, perhaps other individuals like to watch athletes because they admire individuals who are at their highest potential; individuals who are "self-actualized." Its just a thought. It would be just as easy to argue that sports are nothing more than cheap entertainment meant for the unintelligent portion of a population. I guess that depends on one's perspective.
I can see how each individual is going to put forward and show off their strengths though, whether they are intelligence, athletics, altruism, attractiveness...etc. Each individual is also likely going to put an emphasis on the importance of the traits that they themselves are privy to (IE. intelligent individuals will believe that intelligence is an important trait, attractive individuals will believe that attractiveness is important, and altruistic individuals will believe that altruism is important and so on).
I think you made an important point and it's why I wasn't commenting on the individual sportsmen directly, but more so on the forms of self actualization we value most as a species. Previously, physical strength was important for our survival and continued spreading of our genes. Today, I don't think it is so much and I'm arguing we should consider adjusting what we value accordingly.
The nice thing about all these various perspectives is we can actually measure them against each other to some degree. We can find peaks and valleys of wellbeing as Sam Harris describes in the Moral Landscape.
ahhh I see.
I agree with you that
I am not familiar with "The moral Landscape" or Sam Harris's work. I am curious how he proposes to measure such values.
now this however is spot on, IMHO
I personally think you have not read very much about what is going on with c-sections, they are rarely done for the patient's benefit, but rather the doctor's, and there is evidence to suggest that they weaken the mother, the baby, and the bond that they form.
So that's a pretty bad example to use
Babies that do not pass through the birth canal start with a disadvantage in life
I'm a bit confused by this. How is what I said about c-sections being a way that human beings influence natural evolution a bad example? What is it a bad example of? Can you explain your point further?
I will be back to do this. I am afraid I have just seen this and am out of time.
But stay tuned.
Don't take me badly, sorry If I sounded a little abrupt, I hope to be able to illustrate my point.
I will be back a little later.
big hugs
I love listening to Milton Friedman talk. I was struck by how verbally acrobatic the challenger was in this video. He was one of the more eloquent speakers I've ever heard. But Milton Friedman in his inelegant speech poked holes in his premises and arguments very easily. As Nietzsche pointed out (and others as well), this shows an example of how it's more important to focus on the point of what we are saying, rather than how good it might sound. That's not to say I don't think precise speech is important or that beautiful speech doesn't have its place. It's just not very good when we forsake a good argument in the process.
Yeah, it was funny to hear the crowd give the questioner a roar of applause after his question and then when Milton was done with him it was like, "Oh SNAP!"
You must not have listened to too many speakers before.
The man wasn't a poor communicator, but have you ever heard someone like Terence McKenna speak?
Or Alan Watts, or even Sam Harris, who has been referenced in another comment somewhere on this page.
My god man, one of the most eloquent speakers I've ever heard.
I am flabbergasted.
One could argue that fighters have an intelligence in their own in being able to understand and control their own body. People watch to see the amazing control and ability these fighter's have with their own body.
Milton Friedman is brilliant but stupid as fuck as far as motor movement with his body. He's capable of doing backflips if he tried but we all decide to put our efforts into different type of intelligences.
Excellent point well made.
A powerful, emotional TED Talk on kinesthetic learning (among many other things) certainly applies:
So the question becomes, which forms of intelligence should we worship? Which forms should millions and millions of people spend tremendous amounts of money idolizing and promoting? Which should get the lion's share of our attention?
I'm not saying motor intelligence is wrong or bad or even unworthy of great appreciation. What I am asking is which one increases human wellbeing the most and brings us advancements in science, technology, economics, philosophy, literature, and more? Which one will our species need most for the challenges we face in the future (the great filter of the Fermi Paradox, perhaps)?
I'm all for individuals focusing on their strengths and excelling in them. I'm also for the free market choosing where entertainment dollars should go. And... I recognize how many people like me voicing our opinions on the value of intellectual intelligence can actually change what people end up wanting. We are the product of our inputs, and I think if we want better outputs, we should constructively criticize our current inputs.
Thank you for your comment.
Maybe it's not about what intelligence we should Worship and monetize but rather it's about educating people the benefits and trade offs of each intelligence and allowing them to choose for themselves.
Your post has me thinking though and I'm gonna have to reread it to understand better where you're coming from; great as if I needed more things ponder haha. Have a great one, followed.
(Posted from Phone esteem account) -Chrone
That's the point of the post! To get us thinking about what we value and why. :)
Sorry, the irony is rich in this one! The Ponzi scheme of Fiat currency aside, Friedman was one of the main promoters of Chicago School neoliberal policy which has effectively transferred wealth to the elites in the exact same manner money is earned in a casino. It, then, should be no wonder that the entertainment industry is modeled and run by the casino owners!
Now, of course, if you own the casino you couldn't be happier, no argument there; but it' not a sustainable economic model, IMO., and will lead to ruin and a return of a brutal neo-feudalism as the energy supply which runs it diminishes......
And yes, I upvoted you and don't expect the same in return as this is Steemit!
I think Friedman got many things right and some things wrong. To throw out one idea because the source produced other ideas is a genetic and ad-hominem fallacy. He was for open, free markets. I have no issue with that at all because it increases human wellbeing.
Thanks for the reply, luke! However, you seem to have dismissed my most pressing point: neoliberalism did the opposite of creating free markets! It's led to a state run casino oligopoly. Ask Berwick if you don't believe me.
I don't see anywhere in my post a personal attack on Friedman, I've simply stated the fact of what his policies ended up being--a dismal failure, IMO......I've posted elsewhere that the Randian's took power and used the communist state to their benefit--this is the best definition of Trump/Ryan and Co.... Not very Randian and not very Marx.......
On fiat currency: if I had created that system I would have to take full responsibility for having created it.
Your post sounds to me like jargon and analogies, not points relevant to my post. Do you agree or disagree with the principles Friedman outlined in the actual video and if so, what, specifically? "Neoliberalism" doesn't mean much to me. It's just a label, a tool for tribalism. Same with "Randian" or "Trump/Ryan and Co" or discussing Friedman himself as if Statism is his fault.
If you're really interested in my perspective, check out the Matt Ridley books I mention here. They make a lot of good points, IMO.
I'm more with you than against you, Luke, as far as your ideals; I've even incorporated Maslow into my Global Commons Civilisation and I hope sport and entertainment can one day be moved out of the capitalist structure and into a 'becoming masters' civilization. This can't be done, though, within the current deep toxic structures of economy which exist today, IMO.....
I don't think it's really a "one or the other" kind of thing. Battles of the mind and body are not mutually exclusive (except where the combatant gets brain damage).
But to put it very simply and bluntly, adrenaline feels good. And if you're asking if we've evolved to the point where people will produce no adrenaline from watching two other people beat the crap out of each other - then the answer is no. No we have not.
I get all sorts of adrenaline flowing during intellectual debates. I love adrenaline! As a surfer and pole-vaulter I ate it up. I also see the change in myself and recognize that desire can be redirected if we so choose. The brain mechanics are the same, but we're no longer running from lions for survival. We can redirect towards more beneficial outcomes, if we work to do so.
What do battles of the body produce? Entertainment for some, but not much more than that.
As for battles of the mind, they produce greater intelligence for everyone who participates in the experience.
Yeah I agree with that. Battles of the mind are definitely more productive and a worthy goal.
It's just barely related but it reminds me of something from a documentary I saw a while back advocating private schools. I remembered it when John Stossel recently covered it for Reason: https://reason.com/reasontv/2017/08/23/stossel-south-korea-schools-india-pay
There's a really interesting interview with a teacher in Korea making 7 figures! Seems like a lot of the problems in society might just have market solutions.
Great post, thank you. Seems like another example of governments with their non-natural monopolies and the lack of price discovery messing stuff up. Even at $1 a day, when the market wants something via demand, supply will show up.
It's positive that people wanting that adrenaline kick can get it from two consensenting proxies rather than seeking to commit violence themselves. That shows progress.
I agree, it certainly beats hangings and burning cats in bags. It does actually represent progress. And... I think we can still do better as far as meeting those desires.
I think this is a great article and I think we should look at the word "consenting" for a moment. Do the 2 people who have agreed to beat each other senseless really know what they have consented to? Have they been educated to know what they are actually doing? Do they each possibly have such deep self-loathing in their unquestioned histories that they would agree to hurt their physical temples for worldly power and prestige and to make fiat currency - a ponzi scheme perpetrated upon the masses by a small collection of psychopaths who have been "allowed" to do so. If we had a gift economy do you think people would still consent to this kind of activity? ... No I would say we are "involving" (involution as opposed to evolution) and even more likely DEVOLVING...
I don't think the evidence supports that claim. Read some Steven Pinker or Matt Ridley. We are certainly moving forward based on the data they show. The concept of consent would have been completely laughed at not that long ago with the divine right of kings and all that. Today we talk about it as if it's a given.
thank you for the suggestion, I will check it out.
Combat sports such as boxing or MMA and physical sports like Football and Hockey themselves aren't the problem, at least in my own mind.
The physical skill and mental focus human beings can display at the highest levels of competition can be inspiring and beautiful. When greed, corruption, or the baser thoughts of just wanting to view violence are the primary motives surrounding these sports it isn't beneficial to our species as a whole, but when the more pure love of competition and achievement are behind the sports and audience it could be beneficial.
Just like everything else in this world, it's how us Humans think and behave with it which makes a thing positive or negative.
I agree and am arguing the love of competition and achievement might better be placed elsewhere. Or, at least, the majority of it. There will always be a place for physical sport and even perhaps training in and the exhibition of the use of force (hopefully for defensive purposes to defend those who can't defend themselves).
As to how we think, that's why I write posts like this. Every input shapes the next output. Every thought leads to action which leads to shaping the world.
@lukestokes - While sports in general is a medium of expression of competitive edge of humans in a positive and supposedly harmless way, sports as an 'entertainment' has it's downsides. While being beneficial to the ones that actually participate in sports (benefits like fitness, analytical abilities, faster decision making etc.), for the people watching it, it is nothing more than adrenaline rush and usually, a colossal waste of time in the name of sport. The issue, I think, is with the way the sports has been hyped in media and it has become almost mandatory to watch - to avoid feeling 'left out' when peers discuss it. Millions of people in Asia and Africa spend time watching cricket and many in North America and Japan spend time watching baseball and fights.
Edutainment does exist - quiz shows, reality shows with problem solving etc. but I think the common man does not relate to those because understanding them requires far more effort. It is easy enough to understand why a pass was made or a ball was hit in a certain way for a common man because they are related to physical action that everyone understands but to understand why a blackhole is actually fuzzy is not everyone's cup of tea. Unless we have mass appeal, edutainment will not spread. For us to evolve, as you point out, we need to develop a combined consciousness of humanity as a whole, which will not happen till most of the population in the world moves to higher steps of Manslow's pyramid of needs.
Just my two cents.
Thanks for the thought provoking article. Got an opportunity for a workout for my mind. :)
Regards,
I have a hard time watching fights because I just don't understand it at all. I don't get how people can physically hurt other humans. It makes me sad that there's that much aggression out there.
I understand it, I just don't like it. I don't like how watching that activity still provides joy for so many through adrenaline and excitement. Yes, I watch movies with violence as well, but all the while a part of me knows it's not real and no one is actually being harmed. Could I be unfairly judging people for their preferences? Maybe, but I prefer to think of it as voicing my opinion in the spirit of open discussion about what we value as a species now and what we want to value in the future.
I think that's the part that bothers me as well--people watching it for entertainment. I'm so trying to teach my 3-year old that fighting and shooting others is not fun and games. He picked it up when he still had visits with his biological family and it's been hard to teach him what those things really mean.