We have some wide receiver named Decker who was impacted (on a well-timed attack) by a Cal Safety.
See video here (00:03:39 in time length):
http://www1.umn.edu/news/features/2009/UR_CONTENT_148395.html
"At one point it was as if Decker weighed 2300 lbs" (1)
We really shouldn't need MRI-imaging of these players' brains and spinal cords to know that serious damage incurs should we? Weigh this cost to the individual against the societal need for violence and destruction; the discussion becomes much more complicated.
1) Morrison, Deanne. "Gee' whiz, Dan Dahlberg University of Minnesota Physics Professor calculates the G-Forces in a Football Collision. UMNews.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If you could buy/sell stock for a sport I would be selling football right now. The game as it exists right now will change in the next 10 years.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger question, I agree, is the role that high impact sports play in our society (football, hockeye, UFC, WWE, boxing). In futuristic movies (ex. Gattaca, Star Trek) these sports do not exist and we are led to believe we are a more civilized people.
Let's address why contact sports are necessary.
Update Dec. 2, 2009:
ReplyDeleteNFL alterss rule on returning from concussions
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34245737/ns/sports-nfl/
I found two theories regarding contact sports and war in society, both were in a text from the 70's. I don't know if they're still relavent, but I've heard both as an explanation for violent sports.
ReplyDelete1. Drive Discharge Model
This model suggests that violence is an innate characteristic of humans, and it predicts that that participation in violent sports should be inversely related to that societys participation in war. Thus, contact sports are essentially a release of built up aggression.
2. Cultural Pattern Model
Aggression, though it may have to do with some innate characteristics, is largely learned from society. This model predicts that particular cultures will have similar patterns of war and contact sports.
The study I read (cited below) ended up refuting the Drive Discharge Model based on U.S. data for most of the 20th century, as well as various cultural studies from around the world.
If these results are in fact consistent with other studies, and the Cultural Pattern Model is an accurate description of reality, it makes sense why soccer or track will never be broadcast during primetime in America. It does make me wonder why NASCAR is so popular, the thrill of a crash maybe?
Sipes R., (1973) War, Sports, and Aggression: An Empirical test of Two Rival Theories. American Anthropologist 75:64-86.
Nature of Nurture is at question in MrL's presentation. It's an old debate and the more and more I read the more I come to realize that nature is the heavier factor (in high school I thought it was 50/50 and now I'm leaning toward 65/35).
ReplyDeleteIn short, I disagree with the Cultural Pattern Model. If humans evolved from species which have to battle for their food and if pre-humans themselves battled for the food, then this is still inside us. We need twin studies with very heavy controls (one of the twins in effect never being exposed to any violence whatsoever and the other being let loose into society as a control, scan their brains when both watch two elk attack each other).
I accept Cultural Pattern as perpetuating innant faculties of anger and aggression. Hegemonic masculinity is the existence of a culturally normative ideal of male behavior. It is hardly necessary to expound on the American normatives ideals to this crowd, other than to reference they exist.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself why male sports are so much more popular than female sports (use sports that have both (i.e., boxing, hockey, basketball). It is because males are "supposed" to be "manly" and strong and fierce. Women are not. The NFL, and other sports are so popular because they fit with our accepted cultural norms.
What developed countries have few or no sports organizations? What are the crime statistics?
There are dozens of countries with lower murder rates than the U.S.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
The U.S. is #8 out 60 in violent crimes per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
We have the most sports. This obviously isn't doing anything to curb our aggression (murder/violent crime). This does fit though with my theory of cultural pattern perpetuating innant angry.
I feel this new evidence is a new beast that should be addressed. I'm considering readdressing this with a new blog post. Thoughts and comments first though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI no doubt agree that nature is a strong player in the nature/nurture interaction. Environment is extremely important in how these are realized however.
ReplyDeleteWith the likely inability to do a human twin study, we can consider other social species.
Looking at particularly aggressive species such as Hyenas, you find that individuals display heritable levels of Androgen. In Hyena social groups, females are much more aggressive than males, and rank at the top the heirarchy. In fact, these androgen levels get so high that a dominant females genitalia looks much more like that of a male. The issue is that while the range of androgen abundance is heritable, the exceedingly high levels are not seen until a female rises to the dominant rank. This general pattern is consistent with a number of social species across many taxa.
In a number of other cooperatively breeding species (Neolamprologus pulcher, Clown Anemonefish, Dwarf Mongoose, Meerkats, and Paper Wasps to name a few), domininat individuals also have distinctly different hormonal levels than subordinates, and it is assumed the potential range of these values is heritable. As with the Hyenas, these levels are only realized when the individual is the dominant individual. In the non-mammalian species above (and possibly the mammals too, I just haven't read anything about them), if an individual enters the group that is higher in the heirarchy, the previously dominant individual reverts back to its state with lower hormonal levels.
While this may not directly apply the discussion on the source of human aggression, I do think there is value in considering an individuals state (whether in a heirarchy or the culture they live in) when thinking about the actual outcome of genetic potential.
Getting back to sports, I think violent sports better serve as an indicator of a cultures values, rather than simply an evolved hormonal state.
I don't know much about Japanese sports, but after World War II, Japan dramatically shifted its perspective on war (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution). Was there any shift in the popularity of violent sports in Japan corresponding to this change? In line with Taggarts latest post, were there any changes in violent crime?
I love the Japanese point by MrL. Look into that history a bit more (the formation of the Japanese constitution and you may find some unexpected and funny surprises, I can tell you a bit more but I don't want to ruin the thrill unless you want me to).
ReplyDeleteWas Article 9 a condition of Japanese surrender? I noticed that Germany had a similar amendment after WWII. After looking at a few sources I've just read there is conflicting information.
ReplyDeleteMy interest in this case was based on a few conversations with Japanese people who were alive during the war, the impression I got was that general opinion on war dramatically shifted after the bombs. Based on this, I'd always assumed Article 9 was a domestic decision reflecting those views.
Regarding MrL's first response (hormonal), I agree and want to point out the plasticity of the brain. Like an alcoholic, their brains become conditioned to the stimulus (alcohol) and increased hormones and endorphines are observed post consumption (elicit happiness). So, if an individual has some innant agressive tendencies, our culture can feed those and make them stronger.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Randall Stevens, I would not go as for to suggest the Japanese are a subordinate people because they tried to maintain a "head of state or monarchy" post WWII when they were allowed to draft a new constitution. Tradition is very strong in any culture (try taking Christmas away from Americans). And also, consider the individuals asked to draft the constitution. I doubt it was anyone from the general public, more likely those already in power trying maintain their elevated status. I could make an argument that Americans are just as passive or subordinate as Japanese. We had to be attacked to enter WWII and to this day we allow "wars" to be sold to us as necessary by those in power.
I think a relevant text that relates to the original aspect of the discussion (violent sports relating to society) would be "Your Brain on Cubs," which is a series of essays on the neurological aspects of baseball on fans and players. Unfortunately I haven't read it yet, but maybe I'll have to bump it up the list now. I did hear an interview with the editor in a Scientific American podcast last spring (2008).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=E7C749BE-E982-2B21-2AADBDF1AF968B99
Particularly noteworthy would be the section on mirror neuron theory where we mimic the actions of what we're seeing. I guess a relevant question to that would be if we mimic the actions, do we also have some of the other after effects of actually doing that action? I wouldn't be surprised to see that we do.
Interesting question. Mirror neurons, when I came across them, reminded me of what the artists and authors call empathy. I think people have the ability to feel vicarious pain. Have you ever watched an instant replay of a football player receiving an injury which you yourself have received (for me ankle sprain or breaks make me cringe every time).
ReplyDelete