Sports, cults, fanaticism, et cetera...

[Nezaros]

This could be a philosophical just as much as a psychological question, but I'm asking it here because it feels more right. So anyway, given that the dedication one gives to a sports team, or one's country, is often as blind and fanatical (or even moreso) as that one gives to a religious deity, the phenomena of sports fanaticism, nationalism, religiosity, and any other similar emotions I forgot about, would seem to be closely interrelated, perhaps even the same exact thing.

Just what is it about human nature that causes most of us to throw ourselves at the feet of a group, an individual, an idea, to proclaim that it is better than we are, and thus we must worship it fervently? I have never felt to any minuscule degree that I must be subservient to a god, much less a football team, much, much less a celebrity, and the very notion is highly troubling.

 

[snafupants]

Power in numbers, fear of thinking for oneself, emotional upliftment from group involvement, and reluctance to take personal responsibility largely explain the aforesaid idiot fervor of group dynamics. Perceived lack of direction - related to fear of thinking for oneself and reluctance to take personal responsibility (sometimes plain stupidity) - invites military and religious recruitment; in my estimation, Pod'Lair has creatively molded these two arenas into one brainwashing entity. Rational people, however, can discern scientology as a sham; desperate people may not be so perspicacious. You shoehorned (and italicized) idea in with conventional/tangible cult membership; I found that interesting. Folks oftentimes give up their power by subscribing to unbendable ideologies or firm yet arbitrary reality tunnels; maybe MBTI would qualify. After awhile, they mistake these subjective preferences for fact and reality. It's sad. This culture needs serious reconditioning; some psychic shot in the arm. The only thing the grind promises is an early grave.

 

[Architect]

Pod'Lair has creatively molded these two arenas into one brainwashing entity. Rational people, however, can discern scientology as a sham;

@snafupants, see my last post to the "Pod'Lair Review" thread. I'm still entirely open minded, I'll give even the devil his due, but I have not yet found evidence that PL is not taking that type of approach. I still am seeing value in the Reading however.

Regardless the point is made, that once you forgo Reason then you are open to believe anything.

 

[Lyra]

@Architect

Demonstrate for me how I've foregone reason.

To me it seems that you are doing that by trying to force some best-fit pattern of prior associations and abstractions onto a phenomenon you don't understand, whilst ignoring the logic by which that phenomenon itself is working, and attempts to explain that. I've laid it all out for you step by step, blow by blow, and you just ignore that-- those steps, that unfolding from phenomenon to implication-- and try to stuff the whole thing into whatever box seems most likely to fit it with each new inadequate 'analysis'.

It's lazy thinking. You may not have time but that doesn't mean reason isn't being used by people who do have it, or that the approach your personal constraints impose upon you is adequate. You, like most here, are moving amidst a phantasmagoric haze of abstractions and stereotypes which just don't fit. You don't understand things on their own terms, and then reason in accordance with that-- you push stock images onto them and then prematurely form causal webs to 'explain' those things into their place in that stock set. There is a lack of deep research, empathy, and an understanding of the proper place of deduction and inference and the assignation of causality. That is-- an immaturity of reason.

 

[Architect]

@Lyra

@Architect

Demonstrate for me how I've foregone reason.

I'm not trying to prove that you have. See my last post to that thread, my issue at this point is that whenever I try to zero in on the precise meaning of something which is said I get a blank space. I don't mean by this that it is blank, or that you have lost Reason, but that I keep getting to this and so am open to the possibility of either. It's also entirely possible that it's my fault entirely.

So I took up an example of trying to understand the 'three points'/'innate hunger' discussion. Those words sound good, vaguely make some sense, but what do they really mean? Perhaps if we could continue this discussion on that thread we can make some progress.

To me it seems that you are doing that by trying to force some best-fit pattern of prior associations and abstractions onto a phenomenon you don't understand, whilst ignoring the logic by which that phenomenon itself is working, and attempts to explain that.

This is entirely possible. When one is learning a new subject one naturally uses prior referents.

I've laid it all out for you step by step, blow by blow, and you just ignore that-- those steps, that unfolding from phenomenon to implication-- and try to stuff the whole thing into whatever box seems most likely to fit it with each new inadequate 'analysis'.

OK, pretend I'm a retarded student (which may not be too hard for you at this point), can you point me toward what post you are referring to? I'm not trying to ignore your guidance at all, but much of what is being said isn't sticking.

It's lazy thinking ... That is-- an immaturity of reason.

This ... is a characterization which you cannot make in this case.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

Just what is it about human nature that causes most of us to throw ourselves at the feet of a group, an individual, an idea, to proclaim that it is better than we are, and thus we must worship it fervently? I have never felt to any minuscule degree that I must be subservient to a god, much less a football team, much, much less a celebrity, and the very notion is highly troubling.

There's certainly several aspects to this. I think a large part of it is the individual using the groups identity to fulfill a portion of their personal identity, to a varying degree. For instance, I'm always bothered when someone describing their favorite sports team says something like "WE need better defense", even though they have no real affiliation with the club other than watching them play. This also results in an individual feeling personally offended or threatened when their team, country or religion is criticized.

We're all highly evolved social animals. Belonging to a strong, cohesive group played a large role in terms of survival. The feeling one gets from this sense of belonging boosts confidence, lowers stress and improves overall functioning.

Of course, in the modern world we see the drawbacks more and more frequently. Perhaps with more minds like yourself steering clear and all the religious fanatics and nationalists killing each other, humankind may yet become more independent in their nature.

 

[EditorOne]

Just what is it about human nature that causes most of us to throw ourselves at the feet of a group, an individual, an idea, to proclaim that it is better than we are, and thus we must worship it fervently? I have never felt to any minuscule degree that I must be subservient to a god, much less a football team, much, much less a celebrity, and the very notion is highly troubling.

It is troubling. We apparently have an evolutionary heritage that favors group efforts; we find groups attractive, at some level. That part kinda sorta makes sense. What makes my stomach twitch is the application of that attraction to an inappropriate target. It is occasionally observed that sports team fans live vicariously through the team, overjoyed at success and plunged into despair at losses. That might be too simple, though; the attraction to the group itself might be vicarious. I'm pretty sure I'm not explaining it well.

Personally I never minded playing sports, even though the only thing I was even halfway good at was baseball. I rarely attended sports, though; made it through high school and college without attending anything except one high school basketball game and that was because there was a girl I was interested in also attending. What really filled me with horror were mandatory pep rallies, a kind of mindless exhortation to surrender to school spirit. It is difficult to express the repulsion I felt at that.

Anyway I think what you are describing is a useful feature of human existence gone wrong, gone out of scale, used inappropriately, whatever: Some element of conceptual dissonance is sounding an alert on our INTP sense of rightness. As you said, troubling.

 

[SpaceYeti]

People don't really have gods to devote themselves to, any more. Even a lot of people who technically have a religion can't go watch what God's doing, because he's been so removed from world events through our discovering how things really work. So, instead, we have celebrities, be they sports stars, movie stars, or whatever.

Perhaps we're simply social creatures who can't get past the idea of requiring an authority figure of some kind. I'd presume it's that simple. Your parents aren't authority figures once you're an adult, and God never does anything, so celebrities! Why do you think they know nothing about the products they sell, but people buy them anyway?

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants, see my last post to the "Pod'Lair Review" thread. I'm still entirely open minded, I'll give even the devil his due, but I have not yet found evidence that PL is not taking that type of approach. I still am seeing value in the Reading however.

Regardless the point is made, that once you forgo Reason then you are open to believe anything.

This is a sidetrack but Pod'Lair is a cult for a few reasons, and these are: the hierarchical structure and politics; the esoteric verbiage designed to promote in group (out group) dynamics; preying on the young, vulnerable and bemused; the assertion that they have the truth; the stated crusade of saving the world; the peddling of petty goods; and, finally, general recruitment mentality and zealousness. I could go on but those are the big ones that jump out at me. I have studied cults before and, although Pod'Lair might not channel Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple in barbarousness, some emotional or physical abuse may be lurking in the background. Time will tell.

 

[joal0503]

This could be a philosophical just as much as a psychological question, but I'm asking it here because it feels more right. So anyway, given that the dedication one gives to a sports team, or one's country, is often as blind and fanatical (or even moreso) as that one gives to a religious deity, the phenomena of sports fanaticism, nationalism, religiosity, and any other similar emotions I forgot about, would seem to be closely interrelated, perhaps even the same exact thing.

Just what is it about human nature that causes most of us to throw ourselves at the feet of a group, an individual, an idea, to proclaim that it is better than we are, and thus we must worship it fervently? I have never felt to any minuscule degree that I must be subservient to a god, much less a football team, much, much less a celebrity, and the very notion is highly troubling.

loyalty to a statehood and groupthink. plagues.

it runs into our societies in outlets such as sports, media, entertainment, games, consumerism, its everywhere. one of the more powerful dividers we have among our new world. loyalty to a thing, and imaginary organization that doesnt exist. a logo. a color. whatever the case may be.

its tough too....you get caught up in it, makes you feel good...provides you entertainment ... but at the end of the day you have to seriously take a look around and ask, does this really deserve this amount of time, investment, and dedication? Why aren't people capable of such devotion when it comes to solving other problems?

bleh.

 

[snafupants]

its tough too....you get caught up in it, makes you feel good...provides you entertainment ... but at the end of the day you have to seriously take a look around and ask, does this really deserve this amount of time, investment, and dedication? Why aren't people capable of such devotion when it comes to solving other problems?

Because most people are sheep. They follow because they're incompetent and incapable of leading.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Because most people are sheep. They follow because they're incompetent and incapable of leading.

I hope you mean they're incompetent at leading specifically, because to say someone's incompetent in general just because they'd make a poor leader is... presumptuous.

 

[snafupants]

I hope you mean they're incompetent at leading specifically, because to say someone's incompetent in general just because they'd make a poor leader is... presumptuous.

@SpaceYeti

I am saying the latter but you may be presumptuous in arrogating more than is intended by the use of the term leader. People need to be self-leaders! Free thinkers and autonomous! I am not saying all competent folk need to lead political regimes. You need to lead your life. I'm saying that most people are on autopilot and steered.

 

[joal0503]

Because most people are sheep. They follow because they're incompetent and incapable of leading.

is this the case? or is there something more external going around within large scale civiliization? Is it arrogant to ask, do people really choose and think on their own? I surely assume I do for the most part, but looking back it was terrifying the first time i was able to sort of step back and identify things in my own life. today, i have to admit that what i think, has been thought by somebody else before...what im currently thinking, people have careers to make sure that im thinking it...

the name of this game is distraction. and society seems to do a great job at that. part of me feels that yes, its the majoritys own fault for falling for it...but part of me feels like theres a bit more out there that might be responsible for it all...(sinister thought bubble)

just bleh.

 

[snafupants]

is this the case? or is there something more external going around within large scale civiliization?

Yes to both. These are not mutually exclusive.

Is it arrogant to ask, do people really choose and think on their own?

Certainly not as much as they will.

I surely assume I do for the most part, but looking back it was terrifying the first time i was able to sort of step back and identify things in my own life.

That's natural. I went through it and my sister is currently going through it.

Like a snake, you ditch one skin for another. Year of the snake!

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYeti

I am saying the latter but you may be presumptuous in arrogating more than is intended by the use of the term leader. People need to be self-leaders! Free thinkers and autonomous! I am not saying all competent folk need to lead political regimes. You need to lead your life. I'm saying that most people are on autopilot and steered.

Then I only contend that you specify that in the future. I also think you may be underestimating people, which is easy for we egotistical INTPs to do.

 

[snafupants]

Then I only contend that you specify that in the future.

Fair enough.

I also think you may be underestimating people, which is easy for we egotistical INTPs to do.

I said most people, which retains the veracity of the maxim.

There are certainly more free thinkers, by percentage, on the forum than in the general population.

 

[Nezaros]

You shoehorned (and italicized) idea in with conventional/tangible cult membership; I found that interesting. Folks oftentimes give up their power by subscribing to unbendable ideologies or firm yet arbitrary reality tunnels; maybe MBTI would qualify.

I was somewhat undecided on whether to include "idea" in that sentence, but in the end I decided it was necessary to capture the full scope of my meaning. The American ideals of supposed freedom, democracy, Christian morality, they're all ideas, and people will live and die for them as readily as they will for something more concrete, like the organizations behind each of those. And yes, MBTI did occur to me while writing that; it's as much an ideology as anything else, but (I'd hope) it doesn't inspire as religious a fervor as the others I mentioned. Sadly I'm sure there are people who define themselves by exactly what the sacred INTP webpage says they are, but I don't know any.

We're all highly evolved social animals. Belonging to a strong, cohesive group played a large role in terms of survival. The feeling one gets from this sense of belonging boosts confidence, lowers stress and improves overall functioning.

Of course, in the modern world we see the drawbacks more and more frequently. Perhaps with more minds like yourself steering clear and all the religious fanatics and nationalists killing each other, humankind may yet become more independent in their nature.

Perhaps it's the introverted thinking part of the INTP. As someone who tends to shy away from social interaction and spends time considering everything before jumping on the bandwagon, me and my kind (You all, in theory) are independent thinkers. The idea of action without thought, especially when involving large groups of people, runs entirely contrary to our nature. Indeed, we can only hope that more of society will see it our way, but considering the apparent extroverted nature of most people, and the desire of much of the remainder to "fit in", it's unlikely.

What really filled me with horror were mandatory pep rallies, a kind of mindless exhortation to surrender to school spirit. It is difficult to express the repulsion I felt at that.

This seems to be another reason for the success of the cult mentality; the authority figures wish to promote unity, for good or for ill, and in doing so (inadvertently?) create a sea of mindless drones conditioned to cheer and chant for their organization, be it a school, or a football team, or a country.

People don't really have gods to devote themselves to, any more. Even a lot of people who technically have a religion can't go watch what God's doing, because he's been so removed from world events through our discovering how things really work. So, instead, we have celebrities, be they sports stars, movie stars, or whatever.

Perhaps we're simply social creatures who can't get past the idea of requiring an authority figure of some kind. I'd presume it's that simple. Your parents aren't authority figures once you're an adult, and God never does anything, so celebrities! Why do you think they know nothing about the products they sell, but people buy them anyway?

I know quite a few people who're still rather vocal about their devotion to God; but yes, in this country at least, celebrities seem to have replaced religious figures as the obsession for the masses. That's interesting, requiring authority figures to function. I myself can't remember feeling that way (But then, perhaps I am and just aren't consciously aware) and it may be another aspect of humanity that the INTP is free from in his Ti.

 

[Duxwing]

It is troubling. We apparently have an evolutionary heritage that favors group efforts; we find groups attractive, at some level. That part kinda sorta makes sense. What makes my stomach twitch is the application of that attraction to an inappropriate target. It is occasionally observed that sports team fans live vicariously through the team, overjoyed at success and plunged into despair at losses. That might be too simple, though; the attraction to the group itself might be vicarious. I'm pretty sure I'm not explaining it well.

Personally I never minded playing sports, even though the only thing I was even halfway good at was baseball. I rarely attended sports, though; made it through high school and college without attending anything except one high school basketball game and that was because there was a girl I was interested in also attending. What really filled me with horror were mandatory pep rallies, a kind of mindless exhortation to surrender to school spirit. It is difficult to express the repulsion I felt at that.

Anyway I think what you are describing is a useful feature of human existence gone wrong, gone out of scale, used inappropriately, whatever: Some element of conceptual dissonance is sounding an alert on our INTP sense of rightness. As you said, troubling.

Mandatory pep rallies? Pish-tosh. Try mandatory participation in pep rallies. You're sitting there in the stands, minding your own business and trying to drown the madness out when the announcer suddenly calls you to participate in some ludicrous game for the people's entertainment. Naturally, being one who enjoys entertaining others, I don't find the element of getting up on stage and being silly the least bit unpleasant; unfortunately, I do find being the live entertainment for the equivalent of a one-party rally disturbing.

"Go us! We're the best!" Those words, after a good reading of Orwell, Golding, and Catch-22, should make any reasonable person cringe, for they represent the seeds of a patriotism that pervades every nation on every level. We learn National History more than World History. The entire school stands to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag every morning. Our student political system is a popularity and looks contest devoted to spreading the message of "Go Us!" to more people every day. The members of our student think tanks argue endlessly but never run for office. And before you tell me to go out and change things, I've tried. I've done grassroots campaigning far exceeding that of my opponents, I've rallied what intellectuals I could find to my cause, and despite all that trying looks and popularity have beaten me every time. I've even tried writing critical papers for the school newspaper (a surprisingly unbiased source of school-related and political information) but my readers have only met me with protests that I'd spoiled the mood. It's enough to drive a man insane!

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

I said most people, which retains the veracity of the maxim.

There are certainly more free thinkers, by percentage, on the forum than in the general population.

I'm not so sure. I don't equate rebellious thinking with free thinking, and I don't relate free thinking with self-managment/leadership. The ability to ponder a decision point and the ability to actually make a decision are different things.

 

[Nezaros]

"Go us! We're the best!" Those words, after a good reading of Orwell, Golding, and Catch-22, should make any reasonable person cringe, for they represent the seeds of a patriotism that pervades every nation on every level. We learn National History more than World History. The entire school stands to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag every morning. Our student political system is a popularity and looks contest devoted to spreading the message of "Go Us!" to more people every day. The members of our student think tanks argue endlessly but never run for office. And before you tell me to go out and change things, I've tried. I've done grassroots campaigning far exceeding that of my opponents, I've rallied what intellectuals I could find to my cause, and despite all that trying looks and popularity have beaten me every time. I've even tried writing critical papers for the school newspaper (a surprisingly unbiased source of school-related and political information) but my readers have only met me with protests that I'd spoiled the mood. It's enough to drive a man insane!

-Duxwing

I've given up on it. I've acknowledged that it's a problem, and it may be fixable, but I don't possess the willpower to go out and fix it, so I'm just doing my best to ignore it. Eventually I can just remove myself from the system and it'll be someone else's problem.

 

[snafupants]

@SpaceYeti

I'm not so sure. I don't equate rebellious thinking with free thinking

Now who's being presumptuous? Did I call rebellious thinking free thinking?

I don't relate free thinking with self-managment/leadership.

It is related. Free thinkers are not doctrinaire or cattle.

The ability to ponder a decision point and the ability to actually make a decision are different things.

Some thoughts demand action.

It would be very odd, in other words, for someone who saw the bluff to call anyway.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYetiNow who's being presumptuous? Did I call rebellious thinking free thinking?

Not necessarily, but while I notice a lot of rebelious thinking here, it's not necessarily free. It may be, but I won't draw that conclusion.

It is related. Free thinkers are not doctrinaire or cattle.

Which does not imply they have skill or desire to be self-leaders, nor does lacking free thought mean you cannot lead. The military has plenty of leaders who don't have original thoughts, and plenty of folks who do, yet make poor leaders, even of their own lives.

Some thoughts demand action.

It would be very odd, in other words, for someone who saw the bluff to call anyway.

Thoughts in general do not require any sort of originality or be otherwise different or unrealated from what everyone else is thinking, nor do freely/separately acquired thoughts need to be different from what others are thinking.

 

[snafupants]

@SpaceYeti

Not necessarily, but while I notice a lot of rebelious thinking here, it's not necessarily free. It may be, but I won't draw that conclusion.

Your adjudication doesn't matter to me and it doesn't affect the reality.

Draw whatever conclusion you feel like drawing.

Which does not imply they have skill or desire to be self-leaders, nor does lacking free thought mean you cannot lead.

Lack of free thought means that you shouldn't lead.

The military has plenty of leaders who don't have original thoughts, and plenty of folks who do, yet make poor leaders, even of their own lives.

I'm talking about self-leading, which I have already stipulated. I explicitly excluded leading political regimes and the ilk.

Thoughts in general do not require any sort of originality or be otherwise different or unrealated from what everyone else is thinking, nor do freely/separately acquired thoughts need to be different from what others are thinking.

I'm honestly not sure what this is attempting to say.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Lack of free thought means that you shouldn't lead.

Debatable. I certainly prefer freethinkers to be leaders, especially if they're leading me, but that doesn't mean there's anything innately bad or wrong with leaders who lead through tradition, dogma, or what have you

I'm talking about self-leading, which I have already stipulated. I explicitly excluded leading political regimes and the ilk.

The leader of political regimes is not the subjects to whom I prefer. Leadership in the military can be found at all echelons, not just the top. This includes every echelon down to the self, which I specifically included to avoid this confusion.

I'm honestly not sure what this is attempting to say.

I'm saying that someone can be a leader, even an effective and arguably good leader (of self and others), regardless whether or not they're a free thinker, and that a thought is not necessarily bad or wrong if acquired through non-free-thought, or necessarily good or right if acquired through free thought.

 

[snafupants]

Debatable. I certainly prefer freethinkers to be leaders, especially if they're leading me, but that doesn't mean there's anything innately bad or wrong with leaders who lead through tradition, dogma, or what have you

Innately bad? Not really. It's just not ideal. Also, I discussed self-leadership.

I guess it depends on the dogma too. Nazism usually isn't too cool these days.

Most of the time I prefer autonomy and freedom from leadership altogether.

The leader of political regimes is not the subjects to whom I prefer. Leadership in the military can be found at all echelons, not just the top.

Sure, hence the hierarchy.

I'm saying that someone can be a leader, even an effective and arguably good leader (of self and others), regardless whether or not they're a free thinker, and that a thought is not necessarily bad or wrong if acquired through non-free-thought, or necessarily good or right if acquired through free thought.

That's actually an interesting dichotomy.

I agree that an idiot can strike oil and a genius can come up dry some days.

Overall, I'm more concerned with odds and averages and underlying personalities.

 

[Arc.Demi]

being someone who believe in god , a fan of anything , a member of any group of people doesn't necessarily mean your not a free thinker or that you cant be an ideal leader of yourself or a group of people !!

in leading people it mainly depends on the person himself if he can lead the people from their point of view and go along with their believes and value systems , and if he have the ability to make critical decisions that benefit him and the people he lead without damaging his own values , without forcing his believes on them , then i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be a leader ?

as in leading himself everyone have the right to choose what to believe in , what to love ,what to hate as long as they think its right for the reasons that go along with their logic , humans are different , they don't share the same meaning of happiness, success, nor the same values and believes therefore everyone have the right to lead themselves to what they believe is the right road to find their gold in life .. and that's "free thinking" at least in my point of view .
you cant expect everyone to be ideal and your idea of idealism is sure different than their's .

aside from that there are things that everyone here think its wrong like being a crazy fan blindly in love with a celebrity .. that little crazy fan is sure happier than us who are trying to solve the world's problems and feeling depressed about it while he's dancing or laughing at a funny clip of his beloved

the time we spend either happy or fighting for our believes is never wasted .
and as long as we do that and we have the right to choose then we'r not throwing ourselves at the feet of any one but instead we'r doing that for ourselves in the first place .

 

[Architect]

being someone who believe in god , a fan of anything , a member of any group of people doesn't necessarily mean your not a free thinker

That's an not unexpected perspective.

Say I told you I believed in Santa Claus. I mean really believed in him, as an adult. I prayed to him every weekend, prostrated myself before the Great Nick, told stories about the second coming of Rudolf, insisted on wearing a Santa hat in observance of my religion ... I wonder what you would think of me? Would you trust me with your children, if I was a daycare attendant? Would you trust me to fly your plane, or drive your bus? Am I as rational as you are?

 

[Arc.Demi]

That's an not unexpected perspective.

Say I told you I believed in Santa Claus. I mean really believed in him, as an adult. I prayed to him every weekend, prostrated myself before the Great Nick, told stories about the second coming of Rudolf, insisted on wearing a Santa hat in observance of my religion ... I wonder what you would think of me? Would you trust me with your children, if I was a daycare attendant? Would you trust me to fly your plane, or drive your bus?

i think it depends on you as i said before ..
are you "trustworthy " ? can you accomplish your tasks without it being affected with your believe in Santa Claus or your religion ? these things are not for me to decide but for the ones who are responsible about it ( the one who put you in charge of the job ) if you cant accomplish your tasks properly i don't think i'll have the pleasure to meet you there and i on the other hand wont hand anything i treasure to someone who cant size his employee's abilities :P

p.s. your too old mister i thought Santa's gifts are only for good kids !!

 

[Da Blob]

In regards to the OP, the answer is simple. It is a matter of identity. Everyone has two identities: the personal and the social. We have survived as a species by subsuming personal identities into social identities at times to accomplish various tasks that can only be performed by teams.

We have an entire set of qualities that are related to our social identities and one of them involves feeling empowered as an individual when made part of a team. Using a sports analogy, sports history is full of examples where a team of unselfish athletes with only mediocre skills have defeated a group of egotistical superstars...

 

[redbaron]

I don't really see a problem with sports. I follow basketball closely, and I enjoy seeing how the game evolves, different strategies arise, how different players interpret and ultimately impact the game. And observing players who work tirelessly on their skills and hone them is exciting.

Rabid fans of sports I can't say I relate to, but I can see the excitement. People who put in so much effort to reach the levels of ability they do, watching how different strategies pan out when they interact with each other.

People might value what a cult offers, or they might be tricked into thinking it will provide them with something of importance. I think you're applying too broad a stroke to this, I don't think there's really that many people who I'd class as having, 'fanaticism'.

I'm not so sure. I don't equate rebellious thinking with free thinking, and I don't relate free thinking with self-management/leadership.

I'm glad you pointed this out.