The Dismal Science

Point spread

Bentoniani — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:50:05 GMT

"To quantify fan rage, Card and Dahl collected the Vegas point spread, which provides an indication of which side was expected to win and by how much. A less-expected loss equals angrier fans."

Wait, then how do they take into account gambling losses?

/guy who bets too heavily on the NFL

Football itself is the problem---my wife's take.

MonsterDog — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:36:15 GMT

I ran this argument past my wife and she seems to believe that it is the nature of football and the kind of man the sport attracts that leads to these boil-over moments; to her mind men who participate in the beer-and-pizza-and-masculist football culture are more naturally predisposed to be the kinds of men who beat their wives in the first place. She then said she's glad I'm not a football fan (sure, I like the Patriots like a good born-and-raised Boston boy, but my favorite sports are soccer, basketball, and baseball in that order, and I don't even watch the NFL anymore and haven't since I gave up sports betting.)

I asked her what she thought of violent sports in general, specifically boxing (which we watch together on Friday nights on ESPN2) and she said "No dog in the fight. You're watching, but your sense of self isn't tied up in the individual fighter. You're not going to be angry if one guy knocks out the other one because we're just watching to see a good fight."

I don't know if I'm necessarily willing to buy the argument that football in general attracts violent men, but I won't dismiss it either.

I can't beleve they haven't corrected this yet.

Teayser — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:47:29 GMT

The Lions won a second game on Sunday. That's the day before this was published.

Game.....get it? GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Americafirst — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:39:20 GMT

If a person is stupid enough to get violent because some team lost a game (and the opertive word hiere is GAME), then that person probably needs to be pleces into a padded cell and piped music for there rest of its miserable little life.

Does TV cause violence? Only if its football, apparently

baltimore aureole — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:46:52 GMT

I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember that the debate over "does TV (or videogames) cause violence?"

the answer in sociology and pyschology class is consistently no.

so now comes slate . .. . TV football causes violence

but not the other shows.

everything old is new again, lol

What a shocker

chewbacco — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:08:40 GMT

Raging sports fanatics are usually the most pathetically ignorant people on Earth. What a surprise that these brainless beasts cunts abuse their family members when their home team sucks a cock. Most of these guys are former jocks whose glory days left them living vicariously through sports teams full of overpaid assholes.

Don't forget the gambling

Schlepper — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:39:17 GMT

As one who gambles on football (and there's no sport nearly as much fun to gamble on) I think that that's gotta be a huge factor in this. The feeling of the team you're rooting for losing is a bad one, but the feeling of a team you're rooting for AND bet on losing is worse and different--it includes a self directed anger anger that can make you more vulnerable to lashing out. I'd say the violent nature of football has next to nothing to do with it, either way.

The Chicken and Egg of Sports-Related Domestic Violence

Potatoes_Are_Fun — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:49:01 GMT

As a victim of sports-related domestic violence who's gone on to find a happier life among sports fans, here's my take:

Football (or baseball, soccer, jai alai, etc.) doesn't cause ordinary men to become violent monsters. Rather, it's my experience that men who have a predilection to violence or other anger-management issues are attracted to sports because they provide what they consider a normalizing context for their abnormal tendencies.

There's a testosterone-y thing that goes on with sports because they're basically American culture's proxy for war. No matter how civilized we try to be, there's still some element of man-the-hunter in some men, and it needs to be exorcised one way or another. Sports offers a type of consequence-free conflict that a guy can't get anywhere else. You could see your job as a daily war game, but if you lose, you lose your job. Sports allows guys to get invested in something without the risk of losing life, limb, or income.

So guys get into it. All the knuckleheading and bravado is part of the costume drama that was previously incorporated into aboriginal war paint rituals or jousting tournaments. It's human nature. Most guys, deep down, get that. They get into it because it's fun, and when its over, they either cheer or yell at the team/coach/ref, and then have lively debates with their buddies.

Men who are unbalanced, however, don't get that this is all play, and see the chest-pounding as a display of aggressive kinship.

At least that's what happened with me. My ex-husband attacked me once for jokingly suggesting his favorite football team was populated by criminals since a famous prison is near the area. "See all these fans? They don't think so! They'd agree you're a b*#%$!" was the explanation I got when I asked why I had a spreading bruise on the back of my arm. In another instance, I had a dinner plate thrown two inches to the right of my face when his team lost the Stanley Cup to a team from my hometown.

His violence extended to other things. Mention a male coworker while on the way for dinner, and I'd be treated to a high-speed terror ride in the car. Get caught on the phone with my mother discussing an unpaid bill I found, and the phone line would get yanked out of the wall. Thing is, in these other instances, his rationale for irrationale behavior was less haughty than when he was lashing out in response to a sports event.

My armchair psychologist/field reporter conclusion is that sports don't make men violent, but violent men find justification in acting out in the context of sporting events because they misinterpret normal fan behavior as supportive and encouraging of their dysfunction. Real men know it's a game.

Post- football violence

nunontherun — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:36:51 GMT

DUH - why is liquor not considered part of this study?

Yikes. That discredited chestnut again?

billhodes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:41:26 GMT

What junk. (Not junk science; just junk.)

If you want some really significant correlations, why ignore the shocking fact that virtually all abusers have drunk either human milk or cow's milk during their lifetimes?

This Trope Has Been Bouncing Around for Literally Decades

Planetary Eulogy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:39:10 GMT

And every study that's ever purported to make the link statistically has turned out to be complete and total bunk built on a foundation of shoddy methodology and ruthlessly massaged data. This one will as well.

Money is the biggest factor

Canada — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:25:35 GMT

When an upset happens, many deadbeats have lost lots of money betting on the game, and will go hit their wives or girlfriends. They should do a similar study but incorporating the spread of the games, and if the beater has a penchance for gambling.

Football? Come on!

prufrockette — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:25:27 GMT

What about countries where football is not popular? Does soccer cause the same impact? I think this study is going to be short listed for the Ig Noble awards... It's faulty on so many ways: a) It's ideological (it justifies agressors by placing the blame elsewhere, and that elsewhere is not even a pausible cause, like childhood abuse would be), b) it's faulty, (a correlation may or may not be significative) and c) it doesn't offer any new directions on changing the problem

Don't know about domestic violence, but

jascob — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:56:16 GMT

I know that the local ER sees a drop in patients during every home team football game, and an increase immediately following. But these patients are comming in for all sorts of reasons (dunno how many, if any, are victims of DV), and usually non-emergent, e.g., minor injuries, colds, etc. The speculation is that they would just rather finish watching the game before heading to the ER and sitting around for a few hours waiting to be seen for their minor complaints.

So, I think it's plausible that a connection exists between football games and an increase in domestic violence, but I'm not sure that this study conclusively establishes such a connection.

Detroit won yesterday.

Teayser — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:08:26 GMT

They doulbled their wins in pretty spectacular fashion. And you can bet that the Cleveland Brown's fans thought their team was going to double their wins with 10 seconds to go. That probably upset of few of them.

Why do we expect men to make more money?

Don Schenk — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:18:42 GMT

I can remember a Feminist, about four decades back, claiming that once women would make as much money as men for the same job women would share expenses on dates and alimony would be a thing of the past. No such luck.

Feminists still complain that the average woman makes less than the average man, but forget to mention that the average woman works part time while the average man works overtime. Supposedly the average woman who works as long as a man does, and at the same job, makes more per hour than he does...and yet men are still expected to support their women.

Are men more Competitive

Not Rocket Science — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:20:47 GMT

Of course men are more competitive generally... I cannot believe the article ignored the obvious reason... It is called Testosterone! Women may have traces of this hormone... But no where near the levels of men. Women are nuturing because of Estrogen... Does political correctness and the fear of being labeled 'Sexist' make people turn off their brains?

Is the writer entertainment or science driven????

jdub_417 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:39:21 GMT

Not too bad of an article in idea, the practice and arrival to the conclusion is poor. However, why is monetary compensation used as the primary determinant or motivation for competition. Can't people be just as competitive, or even more, with other forms of reward and reinforcement? Even further, socialization does have a big impact- tribal society and upper class university comparison? Uh, you are kidding, right? Need to have a better comparable group comparison, the controlled settings are a little bit different. Yes, study was conducted on the "home turfs" of participants, however, couldn't this have an impact on competitiveness? How competitive would a stated university student be in an African country herding cattle? Comparatively, a foreign cattle herder participating in a study in a US university? A lot of limitations to this research, but it is thought that a solid core idea is attempted to be suggested- which gender is more competitive. But, cross cultural studies are normally thoroughly contaminated by bias and whole plethera of variables. Good idea, poor way of studying and putting forth "somewhat" of a conclusion.

Suggestion to the writer, look for a researcher who has put more time in the field in this specific area TO SUPPORT YOUR WRITINGS. A doctoral student? A true researcher let the answers and study find him; a poor one goes around looking for only studies or research that narrowly supports an "individual" point. Some might call this...research bias...poor objectivity...pseudoscience??????

"Testosterone-driven accounts"

StevieN — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:20:14 GMT

How can someone write such an article, and then in the last few sentences more or less outright admit that testosterone drives competitiveness and agression?

Anyone who has used supplemental steroids (and that includes men AND women) will attest to the simple and obvious fact that they promote competitiveness and agression.

Does success in finding a small culture somewhere that has (apparently) successfully overcome a biologic tendency really demonstrate anything very useful?

women are just as competitive

gunsmoke — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:12:17 GMT

Look at female athletes. They are competitive. A bunch of women in the office setting. Competitive. There seems to be several points missing.

1. Women are competitive, but women and men compete for different things. A man may want a higher salary with less flex time and a woman might want the opposite. Women tend not to be too interested in being competitive around men due to social norms or sexual attraction (ie competitiveness is not feminine). Women seem to be more collaborative when around men but when a group is just women, they can be fiercely competitive.

2. Who knew there were exceptions to stereotypes? Duh!

3. If women ran the world there would still be wars and other problems.

4. If anyone has been at a workplace where all decisions are made by a committee- that is what nurture management would look like. The warrior instinct has it's place as does the nurture instinct.

5. The problem with nurturing is that it does not motivate too well.

In a nutshell, yes.

Baby Gator — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:35:31 GMT

Do I believe men are more competitive than women? In my experience, yes, but that's just when I think about those in my life. Males around me seem to have so much drive to do whatever it takes to succeed while I don't hear females talk about how to get past other applicants for a job in law enforcement. I'm sure it happens, just not to anyone I know.

For myself, I am not a competitive person. I was never raised to be competitive. I hate competition and get tired of trying to prove myself in the job market for instance, battling with 200 people for one pathetic job. Sometimes I think if I were more competitive I could move where I want to move and get a job, I wouldn't be in my twenties and not driving, and I would have a heck of a lot more self-confidence.

Possibly a few women these days are raised to be competitive and sometimes I wish I had been. What I think would help me (and other non-competitive women who need a boost of self-confidence) would be to get away from the people who raised you. Get away from your childhood surroundings, get away from the people who "know you". Join a branch of the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, do other volunteer work away from home, or go away to college. I think that it's necessary for women to do so, but that's just me.

Competition in women

squirt — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:56:10 GMT

Anyone who is delusional enough to believe that women aren't competitive hasn't seen Moms frantically Christmas shopping to find the last in toys for their kids. Or the women who get turned loose at those legendary bridal gown sales. Or the ladies who bake ten or more cakes for the county fair.

Myself, in my early twenties I found that I have a truly killer competitive drive, which horrified me. I've turned it to good use though, setting high standards for myself rather than trying to "take down" other people. If I entered a math competition or took the SAT, I was out for as many points as I could rather than trying to beat someone else. In dog showing, I prefer obedience to conformation; we can score maximum points without depriving others of getting qualifying scores for a title. When I used to play after school softball, I was more concerned about hitting the ball farther each time that outscoring the other team. I'm always looking out for ways to improve or do better or be a little different. The only place that I can really be a killer is playing Monopoly, which after all, is about total domination.

I suspect that a lot of other females are like that.

The article proves that men ARE more competitive than women.

yoshiyahu — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:40:39 GMT

Slate seems to specialize in articles that say one thing, matched with titles that say the opposite.

We look all over the world and find that in every single culture except one, men are WAY more competitive. Then we manage to scrounge up a matriarchy and find that in it, women are more competitive.

This is supposed to prove what? That competition is learned, rather than innate? So what? We have fallen into a strange habit with Nature vs Nuture of ignoring the practical when arguing whether a behavior is innate or learned. We can have a pitbull straining on its leash, eager to bite us; it may have been born a happy-go-lucky dog, and only ended up vicious due to its training. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a vicious dog on the end of a leash trying to attack us. We can declare that competitiveness, with all its positive and negative implications, is a learned trait or behavior, but that doesn't mean that children and adults suddenly find themselves able to be more or less competitive.

And culture can't be changed as easily as the author suggests. If it WERE as simple as the author suggests, we'd see tests showing more equitable competitiveness in European countries with more progressive attitudes and practices regarding sex and role. The ineffably complex web of mores and behaviors and memes associated with patriarchy can't be easily upended. It took millennia for patriarchy to supplant matriarchy, and it happened in many small ways in every area of life, not in some sudden switch. To pretend that we can change things with a few tweaks here and there is awfully silly.

If you believe that

apincus — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:01:23 GMT

you've never been in an all women environment.

As the study shows, its nurture, not nature.

(Exactly the logic behind women-only colleges. If women think they'll be negatively judged for being competitive, they'll pretend not to be. Put them in an environment where it's a positive, i.e. women competiting against women as in sports, and it's no holds barred.) I'd say this is another one of those forehead slapping studies...

THE PENIS IS TRIVIAL IN ITSELF

magdalena_ — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:30:42 GMT

It does not change anything (ok, almost anything!) a great deal. But other factors are not trivial. And they do change a lot.