Archives for posts with tag: proximity to canada

well, it’s super bowl sunday again! time for lots of pizza & beer, really expensive tv commercials, and for hbd chick to wonder why. why, why, WHY?! why are you all watching a bunch of grown men running around after a ball? (~_^) speaking as an outsider (i.e. not a sports fan), it all looks really weird. (and it might just be w.e.i.r.d. see below.)

srsly. i really don’t get it. i mean, i can sort-of understand people who play sports (although i’ve never been interested in that myself), and i can sort-of get wanting to see a top athlete(s) do their amazing thing — like watching usain bolt sprint at super-human speeds — occasionally. like once. or maybe twice. but every week? or multiple times a week? i’m sorry, but i just don’t understand the whole spectator thing.

last year i wondered why people root for local professional sports teams even though most of the players aren’t local. (why the loyalty?) several readers (and fellow twitter-heads) attempted to explain it to me — thanks for that! (^_^) but, to be honest, i still don’t get it. (don’t worry. it’s not something i lose sleep over anymore.)

this year, i thought i’d see if i could find out who sports fans are. (fans of professional sports.) maybe that’ll shed some light on my whole “why sports?” question. lots of info out there on this very topic. here’s some of it…

from reuters:

“NFL: Last sports bastion of white male conservatives”

“Of people who identified themselves as part of the NFL fan base 83 percent were white, 64 percent were male, 51 percent were 45 years or older, only 32 percent made less than $60,000 a year, and, to finish the point, registered Republicans were 21 percent more likely to be NFL fans than registered Democrats. Another factoid: NFL fans were 59 percent more likely than the average American to have played golf in the last year….”

hmmmm. well, i don’t play (or like to play) golf. maybe that explains why i’ve never watched a super bowl game. (~_^) (in fact, i think i’ve only ever seen one *full* american football game.)

from the atlantic, here’re some stats on the fanbases of other sports:

sports - nba mlb demo

sports - nhl nascar demo

so, sports fans — mostly men (no surprise there), very white (except for in basketball), and football and hockey attract the whitest and wealthiest fans (those two attributes are, perhaps, not unrelated).

from vox, here are some possible american nations maps for jayman (~_^)…

the fanbases of football teams:

sports - american nations - football

baseball:

sports - american nations - baseball

basketball:

sports - american nations - basketball

and a hockey tweet map (proximity to canada!):

sports - american nations - hockey tweet map

jumping over to europe for a sec, here again from vox, a map of the percentages of football (soccer) fans attending professional matches. i hope that at this point i don’t have to draw the hajnal line for you (~_^):

sports - europe - football fans

the distribution of dedicated football fans in europe appears to coincide pretty well with the distribution of those who like to get out and play amateur sports themselves (from this previous post):

wvs - membership voluntary organizations - averages

maybe sports fans are w.e.i.r.d.? that IS what i’ve thought my whole life. (~_^)

sorry i don’t have any data here for sports fans in the rest of the world. ‘fraid i’ve exhausted my limited interest in sports for this year. more next february! (^_^)

previously: the home team

(note: comments do not require an email. or a golf handicap!)

Advertisements

rural south dakota! (^_^) no, really.

luke asked: “OT, but maybe you can do some posts in the future on the ‘happiest, healthiest communities’ in the U.S., assuming there are some. Putnam, for example, has shown an inverse relationship between diversity and trust. So presumably he found some high-trust communities somewhere? Are they just neighborhoods in large metro areas? What about Lake Wobegons?”

well, i looked up putnam’s “E Pluribus Unum” paper [opens pdf] and, yes, he did indeed find some high-trust communities somewhere: rural south dakota, bismarck (north dakota), new hampshire, (moving to) montana, lewiston (maine)…. omg! it’s proximity to canada, again!

putnam looked at racial homogeneity in communities and inter-racial trust, racial homogeneity in communities and trust of neighbors, racial homogeneity in communities and intra-racial trust, and racial homogeneity in communities and ethnocentric trust. on each of these metrics, those communities with greater homogeneity just had more trust in all directions — the opposite was true in heterogeneous communities.

if trust means “happiest and healthiest” — and it sure seems to be important in having a functioning society (at least functioning as we know it) — then homogeneity is the way to go. of course, another important thing might be the *type* of population/subpopulations in a society — diversity might work okay if your diverse society is (mostly) composed of non-clannish groups.

here are some of putnam’s graphs for you to enjoy. click on graphs for a LARGER view (should open in a new tab/window — you might have to give ’em a click there, too, to view them full-size):

note that rural south dakota should NOT be confused with north minneapolis, which is a very vibrant community.

(note: comments do not require an email. south dakota!)