Weezer
VolNation Dalai Lama , VN Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 90,395
- Likes
- 268,931
But kids aren’t the only ones who find baseball less interesting than other sports. This isn’t a recent trend. It isn’t so much about knowledge of the sport, it’s that football and basketball are flat out more exciting. Imo the decline of baseball has little to do with society, and more to do with the rise of football and basketball.I have a unique position in that I deal with young people all day long. It would surprise a lot of people if they knew that a large segment of today's young "fans" hardly ever watch a game in any sport. The get updates on there phone and watch highlights. In baseball watching a highlight of a homerun gives you no insight into how it happened. You won't know that it was because he worked a favorable count or fought of several tough two strike pitches and the pitcher finally makes a mistake.
Today's young fans know stats (they are easy to google), players, and final scores. The know very little about the actual sport. There used to be a saying in the sixties, "never trust anyone over thirty." Today it is, "never trust a sport fan under thirty."
Also, you and I probably agree more than we disagree about society. I just don’t see a the correlation you see.I have a unique position in that I deal with young people all day long. It would surprise a lot of people if they knew that a large segment of today's young "fans" hardly ever watch a game in any sport. The get updates on there phone and watch highlights. In baseball watching a highlight of a homerun gives you no insight into how it happened. You won't know that it was because he worked a favorable count or fought of several tough two strike pitches and the pitcher finally makes a mistake.
Today's young fans know stats (they are easy to google), players, and final scores. The know very little about the actual sport. There used to be a saying in the sixties, "never trust anyone over thirty." Today it is, "never trust a sport fan under thirty."
A couple things and we will end this.I see we are working with two different levels of education, "smarts", and intelligence in this discussion. In fact, it's pretty obvious. And sadly, I fear you're defeating my fact-based argument with your existence.
You can't just make up your own definition of things.
Let's start from the top:
"I didn't say people were not as intelligent now, just less educated, dumber".
Where does that sentence make any sense? 1st of all, humans are more educated AND more intelligent today than 100 years ago. So, you're wrong. Education level, by definition, is the amount of systematic instruction a person or population has achieved. Humans today have a higher level of education than 100 years ago. And through the Flynn's Effect I pointed out earlier, they are more intelligent. Also, the definition of "Dumb" is "Stupid." The definition of "Stupid" is "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." So, you could rewrite what you said as, "I didn't say people were not intelligent I said they were not intelligent," if you used the actual definitions of these words and not what you think they mean.
It's nearly impossible to have this discussion when one party doesn't participate in an established set of rules (like actual definitions of words) and makes up their own. Like playing chess with a pigeon - the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, sh*ts all over the board, and struts around like it won.
At the end of the day- You said baseball is declining in popularity because people today are too dumb to understand it. That's scientifically wrong, factually wrong, and implies you think baseball is a complex game to understand. I believe you if you think baseball is complex.
Wait, I thought you were an old grey hair?!?? Are you not like 60+? Figured you would have been around along time ago…I'm confused why this conversation about intelligence now and 100 years ago is centered around baseball?
One thing I will say about the people of the past, they were far better wordsmiths. Very eloquent in their writing and speech. We don't really have that anymore.
You are a high-cultured, sophisticated genius if you pronounced it "unlearn-ed" when you read that comment.I'm not arguing with you one way or the other. My only point will be that language matters. "Dumb" is literally an antonym to "Intelligent". "Dumber" literally means "less intelligent". Go all in per dissecting how to measure "intelligence", but it literally means "less dumb" and vice versa.
Perhaps the vocabulary you intend is a distinction between ignorance and intellect? You can be intelligent yet unlearned, and you can be a very educated moron. But at the end of the day, "Dumber" means "less intelligent".
View attachment 635258