(e:jenks) left a comment for my last post that kinda sets me off... It's not just at what she said, but at an attitude that I've seen from many people (often the same ones who boast about their IQ ( see (e:scott,10) )

It seems that there is a school of thought that breeds the attitude that it's somehow unintelligent to enjoy watching sports. Why is that?

Here's a rant-like essay to help give fellow sports fans ammo against the buzz-killing anti-sport, psuedo-egghead crowd...

Why putting down hockey makes you look like a disgruntled, uninformed teenager.

I say "disgruntled, uninformed teenager" because of the intangable attitude inherent to all anti-sports (anti-hockey) arguments. There's an air of "I'm so smarty pants" to these people. They seem to imply that they're on a more intellenctual plain of existence. They're more enlightened and if you don't see things their way, you're a neandethal.

Bashing sports may seem "hip" or something to some, but it just seems like you're being a "stick in the mud" to me. No one has to be a fan. That's fine. People have other interests, that's fine. It's when people pretend like any knowledge of sports is evil that gets me... Why say anything at all if you don't care about sports? I'll tell you why... it's the "disgruntled teen" thing...

Well, I'm gonna end that right here, with this amazing blog...

Sports are a perfectly valid form of entertainment.

Here's why:

As a player:
Sports provide exercise, a sense of teamwork (sometimes) and even a socially acceptable outlet for agression and competition among kids and adults. We try so hard in our society to pretend that humans aren't agressive. Well get over it. Aggression is part of life and we need healthy outlets. Playing sports is a healthy outlet.

As a viewer: Sports fill a lot of roles that traditional drama cannot, like the following:
[list]
It's unscripted and far better than improv comedy.
It allows a community to come together and root for the 'home team'. (I'm pretty sure my fellow e-strip folks are down with a sense of community, so I don't need to sell that point.)
It involves watching talented people do their thing (unlike reality tv, where people watch un-talented people do each other)
It's great conversation fodder.
[/list]

I like acting, and I also like watching plays. I like painting, and I also like looking at paintings. The same goes for sports. I like playing hockey, and I also like watching the best players play. So, I truly feel you can enjoy both without shame.

To discount professional sports as it's own artform is ignorant, at best. I'm not the first person to enjoy watching sports. (I think the ancient greeks and romans had a bit of their own pro sport going on...) Personally, I feel acting "too cool" to enjoy sports is extremely pretentious.

Now, about hockey in particular...

Hockey is NOT inherently violent. Any activity can turn ugly. I've seen drama kids get pretty nasty. Violence involves intent to do harm. Hockey is aggressive, not violent. Violent acts may happen once in a while, but those result in penalties and/or suspensions (because it's not part of the game). If hockey were violent, players would use their sticks as weapons and people would die. That just doesn't happen.

Many people can't tell the difference, but there is one.

To equate hockey agression (hard checking, fast skating, fighting) with real violence is not a valid argument. The players wear pads and expect to get hit. It's a contact sport and no player would want it any other way. All sports tend to carry the risk of injury. In fact, most fun in life has risk of injury. If we're arguing over what is an acceptable risk of injury, I'm sure I could provide you with statistics that show that hockey is less dangerous than many other popular activities. That's a silly argument for another silly journal entry. For this article, I'm stating that the risk of injury is acceptable. (Certainly no worse than skiing, skateboarding, or sex, and I don't write nasty comments depreciating the value of any of those.)

About hockey fights:

Most detractors point to fights as the reason why hockey is "violent". These detractors generally have no clue what hockey's about, which is why they feel qualified to judge it. Believe it or not, hockey fights have purpose. In most cases, the combatants are players sticking up for their teammates, or trying to give their team a 'boost'. The fights are mostly symbolic and have a sense of built-in honor. (These are big men, if they wanted to really hurt each other, they could.)

No one wants to really hurt anyone. They may look all pissed off, but it's just aggression, NOT violence. In fact, hockey fights very rarely cause injury beyond a bloody nose, and you'll notice that the combatants usually shake hands after the game. That sure doesn't seem like a real brawl to me.

Conclusion:

All entertainment requires some form of suspension of disbelief. If you're not willing to enjoy it, it won't be fun. Here's some tips to help not be a "hockey hater". If you've tried all of this and still can't enjoy it, then you may have a legitimate beef with hockey as a sport and I can't help you, you're a weenie.

Take hockey as entertainment and you'll start to "get it". Hockey gets a bad name from idiots who take it too seriously. (I can't stand art critics, but I still enjoy the Albright Knox.)
Learn to ice skate and you'll start to appreciate the speed and skill of the players.
Go to a big game and feel the excitement and you may finally be able to jump on the home town bandwagon. There's plenty of room.

So, I think I've provided a little bit o' feedback on this subject.

Hopefully this post will either convince some to stop being all "anti", or at least get them to stop trying ruin the rest of our fun. Face it, this town needs something to cheer about. If it happens to be a hockey team, go with it... enjoy it. Be part of the fun, not the ass who tries to detract from the fun. If we ever do win anything, it'll be good for this city, and we should enjoy it. There's plenty of bad things in Buffalo to bring us down. How mahy events do you see that can lift us up? C'mon and enjoy it.

A side note... Those people on the corner (e:jenks) mentioned were probably selling Buffalo News 'Kids Day' editions for Women and Children's Hospital, not touting the Sabres' victory.

(Additionally, W&C Hospital would probably be closed without the charitable acts of hockey players, like Pat Lafontaine.)

All that being said... I still hate NASCAR. Screw watching cars make left turns all day. I gots no tolerance for that redneck crap!!


...thanks for reading my rabling crap...

;)

I heard a story today about people sitting around boasting about their IQ scores.

This wasn't at my job, and the source of the story shall remain nameless, since it doesn't really matter...

This is an easy target for a rant, and I can't pass up a lame duck waiting to be shot.

Besides, the person who told me the story today heard all of this bullshit in person and asked that I scribble it somewhere so she can spit it back sometime... so here we go...

This rant isn't about any individual person, but rather about the IQ test itself, and, more importantly, the pompous asses who feel the need to tell me (or anyone) their IQ...


My view on the IQ (Intelligence Quotient)(WIKIPEDIA - I.Q.)...

In order to rant, I need to lay down my opinion on the IQ test. I do not feel that the test itself is total crap. It may have some uses. My opinion is that it's abused. Most people don't understand it and take it as a yardstick for intellect. It's not.

The IQ test tells us one thing: How well the subject did in the test. It's a test. That's all... it's not a measurement. It's not a diagnosis. It's just a test.

Still, people insist that thair IQ means something more. I beg to differ, and here's why...

I have some fundamental problems with the idea of an "Intelligence quotient" which I'd like to describe in some detail...

1. Defining intelligence: What is "intelligence" [dict] intelligence[/dict]?
(The definitions I've researched are all quite vague.) I have yet to see a 100% agreeable, all-enconpassing definition. Still, we need to settle on something or we're sunk in this article. In that interest, I think we can all agree that intelligence is a quality relating to the ability of one to think, reason, and solve problems. That's pretty consistant with common definitions you'll fiind out there.

I think this common definition lacks one key factor...

2. Motivation: If you don't need (or want) to solve a problem, the intelligent thing to do is to avoid the problem altogether. Skip it. Move on, nothing to gain/lose, so why waste mental resources.

What if the test isn't "your idea of fun"... There's no direct, tangable consequences for a poor grade. Are you less intelligent for blowing it off? If I don't enjoy crossword puzzles, am I less intelligent as my twin who does enjoy them? I don't think so. Motivation's gotta be there to test problem solving ability and get a real answer.

So, here we have a major problem. The subject has to want to take the test. The IQ tests that are most "accurate" are those taken in early childhood. How many little kids want to take tests? Not all kids motivate the same way, and it's kinda illegal to torture them,so how do we account for motivation? If a little kid doesn't want to take a test, what do the answers really measure? That leads me to the next problem... the test itself...

3 Cultural Bias: This one's obvious. Cultural bias is always a mitigating factor in sociological experimentation. There's copious data out there from folks showing that the test scores are culturally skewed. I'm not going to waste time with that. (You can just search google(GOOGLE - I.Q. Test cultural bias) and find 100's of hits.)

OK. So we're just going to ignore the cultural bias debate. Even if we ignore cultural bias.... I have another complaint...

4. Apples and Oranges: Quantitatively measuring a qualitative trait. Huh?
It seems to me that intelligence is a fluid trait. It's a quality that can have many factors. Some of these factors are measurable. (how many digits can you remember (short term memory)), how quickly can you sort some shapes...etc.

Other factors seem more transient...
How well rested are you?
How much stress are you under?
Have you eaten today? (current blood sugar level)
Are you on drugs? (effecting the neurotransmitter reception in the brain)

Still others are less transient,but change due to your environment...
Are you in shape?
Have you been mentally active lately (reading, painting, writing, coding, studying... any "mental exercise" will boost performance.)

So, I think I've established that intelligence is a fluctuating, situationally dependent, environmentally influenced quality. Great. Now let's measure it with a standardized test. What? No. It don't work that way. It's like trying to tell me who is defninitively the hottest woman ever. Sorry, can't be done. You can have opinions, and even statistical data, maybe even a vote... but somewhere, to someone, Bea Arthur(WIKIPEDIA - Bea Arthur) is the be-all end-all hottie. (Gotta love them Golden Girls)

So, this leads me to my rant.... (Yeah, it took a while to get here. If you're still reading this, wow, i'm impressed. You must have a high IQ...)

The main event: Idiots who tell you their IQ score.

There is no reason to know your IQ score. There's nothing good that can come of it. I took the test as a child. My folks never told me my score. I'm really glad they didn't. (70's passing, right? It's like a regeant's exam, right?)

What could possibly come of knowing your IQ?
If your score is low: Could you under-achieve you whole life and have a convenient excuse?
If your score is high: Could you look down your nose at people, or (even worse) could you just expect everything to come to you?

I've wracked my brain and can't come up with a single good use for knowing your IQ...

So, there's no reason to know your score, fine...

What if you just happen to know it, and it's high? Why not boast about your high IQ? I mean... you aced that test when you were 5. You kicked some bootay... now You get to let everyone know you're a genious, right?

No. Please don't... here's why...

Because it can only say bad things about you, like the following:
1. You really have a high IQ, yet you still managed to become an arrogant ass. Wow. Glad you got that high IQ, ass.
2. You're afraid people think you're stupid, or you think your stupid and saying you have a high IQ might get some respect. Well, now they think you're a jerk, too.


Well, unfortunately, this isn't what happens... what happens is some other idiot pipes up and says their IQ is 2 points higher than yours. (Which may, or may not be true)

The end result:

Every once in a while, I get stuck in a canversation where someone starts mentioning IQ scores. This usually is an aquaintance or some friend-of-a-friend. How the subject comes up, I never know, but it happens. Some dorkwad decides to talk about how gifted they are. (It's usually a suburbanite who went to prep school. I should know. I am one.)

For some reason, most people actually sit there and endure this type of "intellectual posing".

I am now resolved to put and end to IQ boasting. From now on, I shall do my best to ensure that I state my IQ is at least 10 points higher than any jerkoff who tells me their IQ. What can he/she do? Argue with me? Demand proof? I sure as shit know they aren't carrying their IQ results around. (If they are, that's too priceless to pass up!)

If we all start this, pretty soon, well all be menza material...(Oh I'll get to Menza another day....)

So, the last IQ I had thrown at me was 141. Therefore, my new IQ is 151 until some asshole says they have a higher one.