cellio | association-based loyalty

Entry tags:

association-based loyalty

When we were visiting my parents last week, my father asked me if I had heard that "[your] school's team won the [cryptic string of letters] championship". Huh? I said. It turned out he was talking about the football team from my high school, which had just won some regional tournament.

He seemed to assume in all seriousness that I would have some loyalty to this team or that I would care. My only connection to it is having graduated from that school more than 20 years ago. I don't know the players or coach, nor do I have any past association with high-school sports.

It's not just my father and high-school sports, of course. It's kind of expected that sports fans will root for the home team -- and that voters will vote for the local candidate, and that people will generally show some pride when someone who shares ethnicity, an alma mater, or the like does something noteworthy.

I don't care about such factors, however. For me, it's all about relevant factors, quality chief among them. Now I might end up knowing more about the similar person/team/company/whatever, and that may lead to favor, but the favor does not derive directly from the connection.

I don't root for the US teams at the Olympics or the Steelers/Pirates here. (Bad example, I know, because I don't follow football or baseball anyway, but if I did, I wouldn't necessarily favor those teams. I would favor the teams that showed the best balance of skill and sportsmanship, whoever they are.) I don't vote for politicians just because they're from my neighborhood/county/state, or women, or Jewish, or Carnegie-Mellon alums, or (speaking theoretically) SCA members or coworkers.

Now there are some areas where having something in common can affect a decision. In an election for city council, the guy who actually lives here and participates in the community has an edge over the guy with a local post-office box who's never seen on the streets. Or, if all other factors are equal (which they rarely are), I'd probably vote for the candidate who shares my religious views, because those views can affect how one governs (or judges, since we elect judges here). But that's not at all the same thing as favoring the secular Jew just because he's named Rosenblum.

I've seen a lot of campaigns that amounted to "vote to put a woman in office" or "vote for the home-town candidate". (And, of course, the "vote party line" appeals.) That sort of thing is actually less likely to get my vote, because they should have been talking about issues instead of appealing to my presumed "nationalism" ("statism"? "townism"?).

Now voting is important and sports are not, but I suspect that a lot of people base loyalties on the same kinds of factors in both. But I just don't feel that connection -- that someone went to the same school or lives in the same town is casually interesting, in a small-talk sort of way, but not really relevant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If one believes that the members of a certain group -- one's home town, for instance -- really are superior, than membership of that group is a relevant factor, because membership implies quality. :)

But what aspect of living in my home town makes someone superior?

I don't know about your home town, but living in my home town is grounds for me not to hire 'em, IMHO. :)

There was an SCA member running for Governor in the Recall out here ;-)

For some people, having an association gives them _something_ to hang on to. And, there are some people who, having either gotten so entranced with their home team/school team/etc., or have grown up watching the Army-Navy game with a passel of rabid swabbies, or whatever, gives them a reason to care. Others of us care about other things. I'm not sure that I care to extend this argument to politics -- altho there is some chance I'll know a political candidate who hails from the same small town I grew up in better than I will know someone who grew up in Montana, and consequently I may have more opinions about his/her qualifications.

Were I a member of a fraternity, a fraternal/sororal organization and I knew that this person had sworn some (serious) oaths that I had also sworn, I might also believe that the candidate had the same feelings about truthfulness, etc., that I did. If the candidate was a member of the chivalry, also, I would have to fight that knee-jerk reaction to believe that person believed in the truth and the right. So it would be a natural thing...

True. If I know of oaths the person has taken (perhaps because I witnessed them), I'm going to be influenced by that -- for good if either I agree with the oath or he has been unfailing in keeping his word, or for ill if I don't or he hasn't. Religion isn't the only association that influences behavior; it's just the example that came to mind.

i agree with you on everything except the sports teams. i'm a cincinnati reds fan, not because they are good or make good decisions or because they won 10 world series in a row, but because they are my hometown team, i grew up loyal to them and will be, even if i ever move. i don't change my sports loyalty to who is playing well that season because you don't know how they will play the next season. i think for sports most people have loyalty to a certain team (their hometown team, or school team or whatnot) because it's watching that team that you have some investment in that makes the game good. you can appreciate their ups along with their downs. and because sports is not a part of life that decides laws and foreign policy i don't think that association-based loyalty to them necessarily should be lumped in with party loyalty, etc. it's a whole different ballgame (pardon the pun- i couldn't help it).

That makes a great deal of sense...

I was watching the Grey Cup (CFL championship game) and had no particular interest in either team. Normally, in that situation, I just root for good plays on either side. However,

scooterbird posted a comment in my journal rooting for one of the teams. Contrary soul that I am, I immediately started rooting for the other team.

A game really is more enjoyable to watch when you have a reason (no matter how trivial) to root for one of the teams, even when that team is losing. It gives you a bit of a personal connection.

Similarly, in this big and challenging world, many people like the security of knowing that they belong to a village, a tribe, a meme. If I know that someone is a SCAdian or a con-goer, I know that not only do we have a hobby in common, but that we probably also have other things in common. In a room full of strangers, if all I know about each of them is one hobby, I'll naturally gravitate towards those who share one of mine.

Tribal loyalty is probably based deep in our genome. It leads to lots of problems, yes, but there are also benefits.

Ugh, tell me about it. This weekend, we're going with a friend to freaking Wheeling WV because "our" high school football team made some stupid playoffs. I told Rusty that I didn't understand the fascination, and he said "Well, Jim went to Martinsburg [High School]" ...to which I pointed out that so did I, but it doesn't make me want to drive 4-5 hours to see their dumbass football team! Bah. I hope they lose.

At the risk of setting off a domestic squabble that's none of my business, why do you have to get sucked into Rusty's desire to see this game? Does he need you to help drive or something? (Dani and I each have things we do without the other -- gaming cons for him, SF cons for me -- and I've seen no problems as a result. In fact, it can be kind of refreshing sometimes to have one's sweetie out from underfoot for a day or two.)

In this particular case, he's going mainly to help out Jim (who found himself unexpectedly without a ride that day), and I'm going mainly to humour Rusty. He usually works 12 hours per day, six days per week, so he's usually out from underfoot. We don't really do much together when he's NOT working, so a day out together might be fun, no matter how lame the destination. :)

I would favor the teams that showed the best balance of skill and sportsmanship, whoever they are.

One might point out that there is something, well, unsportsmanlike about rooting for the best team. As my dad used to say about Yankees fans, "It's like rooting for I.B.M."

These are not rational decisions, however. What do these teams -- with players from wherever, coaches from wherever, often owners from wherever -- have to do with the places they "represent." Nothing at all.

You have no idea how much my life is better this fall now that the Steelers stink. I can stop involuntarily caring about the whole stupid thing.

Altho, in strictly local fun events, such as rec soccer, I find more and more that parents are applauding good plays by any team, even if their own kid isn't on it. That makes me hopeful.

That's very good to hear. Little League etc were pretty bad that way when I was a kid, and the parents were worse than the kids by far.

And some of them still are. (One reason, I believe, why there is a rule in the Ohio AYSO that parents have to be silent on the sidelines.) But we've been extraordinarily lucky that the teams we play for and against have been composed of people who care about the kids first, the quality of the experience second, and winning someplace down there. It's been fabulous for my Duncster.

One might point out that there is something, well, unsportsmanlike about rooting for the best team.

Yes, and that's why I said "balance" (with sportsmanship). Bsically, I would care about a team that (1) plays extremely cleanly and (2) is competent before I would care about a team that's good but uses questionable practices.

You have no idea how much my life is better this fall now that the Steelers stink. I can stop involuntarily caring about the whole stupid thing.

Congratulations. :-)

Bsically, I would care about a team that (1) plays extremely cleanly and (2) is competent before I would care about a team that's good but uses questionable practices.

While I agree that sportsmanship is important (there are teams I will always root against, simply because I think their players and/or coaches are assholes), quality actually makes very little difference to me. Indeed,

msmemory and I will usually root for whoever we currently perceive to be the underdog, lacking other influences. It's no real disappointment if they lose, and a fine rush if they manage to pull out the win.

As has been mentioned before, though, the key thing in sports watching is that they are far more interesting if you're rooting for somebody, and the local team makes a good default. It gives me someone to follow over the season, and generally makes the activity more enjoyable...

Association-based loyalty makes a little bit more sense in the case of associations where all (or most) members are there voluntarily--that is, you must have at some point before joining made a general judgement about the group, its practices, and such, and decided that you wanted to be a part of that. Since everyone else is doing the same thing, this gives you some (presumably favorable) character information that is probably true for each person in the group--that they have decided that the ideals or whatever of the group are worth following.
Religion is something that I wish applied like this all the time, but often doesn't. So, I won't look at you funny if you decide to favor someone you don't know because they are an unmarried Jewish convert--I think that's the one case where the group-ideals thing usually does apply. :)

I agree that it makes more sense for self-selected groups, though I still think there has to be some relevant shared quality. Some groups are fairly homogonous that way; others are very diverse.

(I just realized, in writing this, that I probably have a more diverse social circle than the US average. That may be part of why I don't assume that a social tie means similarity. Some of my best friends are people with whom I disagree vehemently on most political issues, for example.)

So, I won't look at you funny if you decide to favor someone you don't know because they are an unmarried Jewish convert

You do know that I'm married, right? :-)

(I just realized, in writing this, that I probably have a more diverse social circle than the US average. That may be part of why I don't assume that a social tie means similarity. Some of my best friends are people with whom I disagree vehemently on most political issues, for example.)

Yes, that's true of several of us. One of my dear friends and I have deep divides in our politics, and a couple of my sisters and I do, as well.

Howsomever, I do happen to know that the president of the Northern California Christian Coalition lives a couple of blocks over from me. And if I were to see one of the people whom I know from being in the neighborhood is on their leadership council, I would probably make instantaneous judgements on whether I'd vote for that person in local elections....

You do know that I'm married, right?

Yeah, I specified "unmarried" only to eliminate what seemed like the largest reason for people to convert without actually believing in the religion they're converting to.

Ah, got it. Unmarried at the time, as opposed to unmarried as current state. :-)

Fortunately for me, most of America doesn't think the way you do, or I would have been forced to do honest work after college. I paid off most of my tuition bills selling real estate.

Rule One: Find *something* you have in common. "You could always use the extra bedroom for your hobbies. Do you have any hobbies? Really? What a co-incidence! I love fly-fishing/deer hunting/hang gliding/bungee jumping/fire walking! We'll have to get together some weekend after you've settled into your new home."

Mind you, I never lied about the house I was showing. If it was in a flood zone, I told you about it. It was just my personal life that accomidated some stretching.

Rule Two: The client is better at it than you are. By at least two units. If he tells you about bagging a ten-point buck, you don't mention the twelve-pointer you have in your den. The best you ever did was a six point buck.

What amazed me was how well this actually works. Everytime there's a lull in the conversation ask his advice about fly-fishing, hunting whatever. Where do you get your equipment? How do you handle the problem of ... They'll stay with you through two dozen plus houses if they think they have a common interest in you.

Wow, I didn't know about your shady past. :-)

Did you ever get tripped up by pretending to interests/background you didn't have? "What's your favorite type of lure?" "I'm new to the city; tell me about getting a hunting license here." "Are there any local ordinaces I have to worry about with firwalking?"

If you ever get caught faking it, you're probably history as far as this customer is concerned.

Or maybe not -- there's enough fake sincerity out there that maybe people are innoculated against it. Nobody believes anything a car salesman says, after all. It's a deal-killer for me (because how do I know that you won't also lie about the house?), but we've already established that I'm not normal. :-)

Everytime there's a lull in the conversation ask his advice about fly-fishing, hunting whatever.

This makes sense -- and could actually be done without the part where you give yourself hobbies. I'm sure that some of the service providers I've used haven't really been interested in the SCA, for instance, but if they saw the armor or crossbow or scrolls or whatever and asked about 'em, that was enough to get me talking. Moral: find customers with weird paraphenalia. :-)

You know, around here that has a whole different dimension.... ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

association-based loyalty

no subject

no subject

no subject

Theoretically, of course

Oh, and...

Re: Oh, and...

no subject

Sports is a different animal...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Sports...

Re: Sports...

Terrible Parent Backseat Drivers

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Circle of friends

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Weird Paraphenalia...