association-based loyalty

[cellio]

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.

Comments

[siderea]

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. :)

Theoretically, of course

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

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.

[murmur311.livejournal.com]

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).

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

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.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

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.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

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. :)

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

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.