Not you too? The fact that he had a physical connection is so unimportant to the analogy. Replace little finger for "his cat ran away" or "he lost his watch" and it is exactly the same in terms of the message Smith is trying to get across. He used the little finger to illustrate something trivial, I don't know how you can't see that.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Not you too? The fact that he had a physical connection is so unimportant to the analogy. Replace little finger for "his cat ran away" or "he lost his watch" and it is exactly the same in terms of the message Smith is trying to get across. He used the little finger to illustrate something trivial, I don't know how you can't see that.
He has a physical connection to both his watch and his cat aswell.
The basic premise of what Smith is saying is that that which we experience directly has a greater impact on our emotions than that which we experience second hand, its a common and pretty obvious theory, the premise being that we have closer attachment to that which we are directly connected to (it doesn't have to be a physical connection).
Its you thats missing the point a bit here.
But this thread is way too of track and going nowhere, so....
City, losing to Chelsea eh? I wonder if Roberto has updated his CV.
City were focking cack.
I'm mature enough to admit that I care little for the plight of the unknown masses in comparison with my own personal instances of loss; the two can be compared, because I have done so, and the answer is that I do care more about United (my personal passion) than I do the victims in Japan (people who mean nothing to me on a personal level). Why do you consider it immature of me to make that comparison? I'm only making it in response to what the City fan above had said, it's not as if I go around comparing United to other facets of human existence on a daily basis; but in this case, upon reading the City fan's sentiments, I was compelled to make the comparison for myself, and the answer is definitive; I care much more about things that are personal to me than I do about things that are not. I'm not expressing any pride about the fact, but neither am I going to feel shame over it simply because I'm told that I shouldn't think that way. Anyone who's spoken much to me on this forum will know that I've no problem with expressing my thoughts exactly how I experience them, free from the burden of a strong desire to be accepted by others by pretending to think like the majority, or, more accurately, think how the majority would 'expect' me to think. I believe that there's good and evil, selfishness and selflessness in everybody, and this is one instance in which I'm, I guess, pretty selfish; it's not immaturity to recognise and accept that; to me, selfishness is not the wholly undesirable trait that moral society would have you believe it to be, rather, it's an essential fact of life, and one that I feel no shame in admitting that I experience in myself.
Exactly, some people would say that those who exhibited this defence mechanism displayed emotional intelligence rather than emotional immaturity.
But evra has already said that he only 'frets' about that which effects him directly, thats more an indication of inability to empathise than of ego defence.
In terms of ego defence, I'm not sure anyone would say that disassociation is a sign of emotional intelligence.
I misread you. I thought you were saying "feeling worse when Utd lose just betrays an inability to feel empathy, common with people with incredibly low levels of emotional intelligence", which I would disagree with, but you were actually saying "saying you feel worse", which is an entirely different matter.
I definitely get more affected, emotionally, by United losing a game of football than I do by tragedies that have no direct effect on me or anyone close to me.
Isn't that nornal, though?
Can't be good for you to react to every bit of bad news you read in the paper as intensely as you do when you watch the team you support lose. Not that I think anyone does.
Isn't that nornal, though?
Can't be good for you to react to every bit of bad news you read in the paper as intensely as you do when you watch the team you support lose. Not that I think anyone does.
That's a very basic understanding of his theory. He's trying to illustrate the natural selfishness of humans. The need to focus your concern on those things that effect you and those things you can impact. Smith was the first to recognise that this wasn't something to be ashamed of but rather a stark reality that is unavoidable. It wasn't such an obvious theory in 1759. Remember that Darwin would only talk about humans as highly evolved animals a hundred years later! As Redjazz noted this is a defence mechanism that we have developed in order to survive and flourish.
No apparently it makes you a twelve year old with very low emotional intelligence, you want to work on that.
Damn. Guess I'm not a United fan after all. Is it alright if I still hang around here?
So, city fans are a bitter bunch eh?
Yep. That's not to say though that people cannot feel extremely emotional about faceless human tragedy, but those who do would likely have already made it their passion to help out in such circumstances; volunteers, aid workers and the like. I suspect Popper would more likely fit the description of United Fan than Aid Worker, though I could be wrong about that I suppose. Where he's going wrong though is by expecting everyone to think as he does (or professes to) about, for example, the tragedy in Japan, and calling anyone who admits to not having such strong feelings immature.
I myself am a United fan, such is my passion, if I didn't care so strongly about United then I wouldn't be a passionate United fan. I have other passions in life, natural disasters and human aid not being one of them; as such, I care much more about United and my other passions than I do about natural disasters and human aid. Sue me.
I cant be arsed with this any further.
If you're really moping round in 'grief' after Utd lose then I pity you.
If like cider you actually care more about a ball going in a net than you do about tens of thousands of people dying then I'm glad I dont have an existence as cold and empty as that must be,
If you're really moping round in 'grief' after Utd lose then I pity you.
If like cider you actually care more about a ball going in a net than you do about tens of thousands of people dying then I'm glad I dont have an existence as cold and empty as that must be,
That last paragraph is absolute nonsense. A bit stupid actually. You are effectively criticising people getting upset about large scale disasters and huge loss of lives yet justifying someone getting upset over a game of football.
What the feck has happened in here? Typical City, they even feck up their own meltdown thread.
I don't think you're being fair at all. I know loads of people who exoerience very extreme emotions as a result of supporting a football team. Far more extreme than the emotions they feel on hearing about natural disasters or war, or whatever other humanitarian disaster happens to occupy the front pages on any given day. I can assure you that their lives are neither cold nor empty. They jiust happen to enjoy the buzz you get from being a football fan, whilst also having enough perspective on life to avoid internalising every global tragedy at a deep and personal level.
I guess the one question everyone has ignored here is exposure.
In reality Utd losing has no more of a direct impact on you than a natural disaster in a far off land does. But the fact is you are more exposed to it as you actively follow it.
No one has said you need to react to every bit of bad news. But if you can altogether ignore 10000 dying and yet get awfully upset when someone scores a goal against your team I'd say thats pretty unhealthy emotional functioning, be that denial, disassociation, lack of empathy or whatever.
As usual discussion on the caf goes wildly off the point as everyone strives to show how right they are.
The thread's getting longer though, soon it'll be as long as RAWK's, then it'll be truly massive.
Isn't it Ironic that in a thread where we are laughing at City fans, especially one comparing real life tragedy to football, some of us decide to start doing that very thing?
Let's all laugh at Redcafe.
Let's all laugh at Redcafe.
My life's just fine actually.
Although Cider's view is very blunt, and his words look harsh to actually read, I have to say I agree with him here. Not that I would compare the two scenario's, because there's no need and it's pretty stupid, but I would be lying to myself if I said his posts didn't apply to myself too.
Very extreme emotions? Jeez, thats rough.
What sort of things do they do or how does a loss effect them exactly?
My point, its a fecking stupid comparison...
Well whatever works for you Cider....
I'm not criticising anyone.
I just find it hard to believe anyone on here feels as upset about bad news they read in newspapers as they do when United lose. Where's the cut-off point anyway? 100 strangers dying? 10? 1? Every death is tragic but fecking hell, life is too short to get cut up about all of them, surely?
I don't really understand what's happened in this thread. I read a story in the CE a while a go about a young girl being raped by 18 different people, and I felt shitty for ages. Like physically sick. I had to mentally block it out and not concentrate on it. I never get like that over a game of football. Losing a game of football is a pretty acute hurt- it comes, it goes. It's just football. The hurt is never chronic. Feeling emotionally ill after hearing about a tragic story is a whole lot worse, obviously I don't get like that after every story, but that's because I generally tend not to involve myself in it as much as possible. If I had stopped to think about the suffering of those 'faceless' thousands I would feel pretty feckin dreadful and I wouldn't really begin to care about a football game.
No one's (unrelated to the tragedy) moping in grief about what's happening in Japan either though. Are you?
A United result affects us much more. The same way the death of someone close to us affects us more than a death of a stranger. Obviously a loss in football and death is a completly different type of emotion. It's all agent-relative that's the nature of the world we live in.
That's pretty much how I see it, and thought this was generally the case.
That's a point actually, I read that article and felt sick. Yet I read up on Libya and Japan each day and can only sympathize with their plight, but I don't feel like I did while reading the other story. Maybe because of the extent of what happened, I mean the perverted sickness of it and an individual who we can all give a face to, made it that bit more emotional and personal?
Thats how I'd feel too, but its just a case of me being on the moral high ground and not a real fan I guess.
Maybe it depends on how much you read up on something? Like that story was horrific because you knew the details of what happened. Stuff like Japan etc, we know disasters have taken place, we know people have died, but for the most part I guess we never allow ourselves to dwell on it. We can't, becaue if we did it probably would all begin to get to us- so much shit happens in the world. But if you read a story that looked at the disaster on a micro scale- described exactly what these people were going through, you would be able to imagine it in greater detail and therefore feel much worse about it.
We tend to shape our own reality's, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly allowed themselves to dwell on the suffering some people are experiencing, would truly compare it to a game of football. We just don't always allow ourselves to dwell on it. Though sometimes, as with that rape story, we can't help it.
Why do you keep saying it's stupid and immature? We seem to be having an interesting discussion here (though perhaps in the wrong thread) about the tangible nature of our passion for United, comparing that to the vague and largely intangible emotions many of us feel towards far away natural disasters. What's so stupid and immature about that? The world famous *********** quoted on the previous page obviously didn't feel the topic was stupid and immature, so I really don't see why we all should based solely on your insistence.
I read the same story and felt sick but that feeling lasted for at most 5 minutes. But then I felt sick for 2 days over losing in Rome and a long long time over a girl I cared about, even though I know I shouldn't.
The it's only 'football' argument only goes so far, because we all love United too much and are way too attached it. It's definitely not sane, and perhaps it's not right, but that's the way it is.
Here's a question for you,
Win the treble and 50,000 people die in Japan
or lose all 3 and no one dies there.
Which would you choose?
Exactly.
Pontificating how much you care about the plight of the Japanese while you sup another cold one, yelling at Martin Atkinson for not sending David Luiz off is a little ridiculous.
And to answer your question, I think its irrelevant because, real life tragedy is quite obviously of more importance than losing a football match.... and how we as individuals feel about it doesn't really matter, its egocentric and immature.
Yes it is and I don't think people are arguing that.
What they are asking is which impacts you more personally; an earthquake in Japan or Liverpool beating Utd 3-1 (Kuyt hattrick)?