Were this true it would also seem to fit with Robin’s theories on art as signalling. If you pick something bad to defend then the signal is stronger.
If you want to signal loyalty, for example, it’s not that good picking Shakespeare. Obviously everyone likes Shakespeare. If you pick an obscure anime cartoon then you can really signal your unreasonable devotion in the face of public pressure.
In a complete about turn though, a situation with empirical data might be sports fans. And I’m fairly certain that as performances get worse, generally speaking, the number of fans (at least that attend games) drops. This would seem to imply the opposite.
Yes, sports is the exception that explains the rule. The rule is that fandom requires some type of exclusivity to inspire your devotion. It’s about identity. Star Trek fans really like Star Trek, but I suspect, even more, they like they fact—when they’re convening—that they have something special in common that they all recognize. In some way, I’m too normal to go to a Star Trek convention—don’t worry, you won’t see me there. But at an Indiana Jones convention, if you could muster the enthusiasm to go, you might see anyone.
Sports is only a half exception. You have devoted fans and “fair-weather” fans, depending on whether they identify with “their team” no matter matter what or only if it’s doing well.
Perhaps fandom is a function of having appealing qualities/message and being able to create identification. I think there are certain identification “holes” here on Less Wrong so if someone with authority (like Robin) started filling those holes there would be sub-fandoms.
Were this true it would also seem to fit with Robin’s theories on art as signalling. If you pick something bad to defend then the signal is stronger.
If you want to signal loyalty, for example, it’s not that good picking Shakespeare. Obviously everyone likes Shakespeare. If you pick an obscure anime cartoon then you can really signal your unreasonable devotion in the face of public pressure.
In a complete about turn though, a situation with empirical data might be sports fans. And I’m fairly certain that as performances get worse, generally speaking, the number of fans (at least that attend games) drops. This would seem to imply the opposite.
I don’t think really liking Shakespeare is considered normal.
Yes, sports is the exception that explains the rule. The rule is that fandom requires some type of exclusivity to inspire your devotion. It’s about identity. Star Trek fans really like Star Trek, but I suspect, even more, they like they fact—when they’re convening—that they have something special in common that they all recognize. In some way, I’m too normal to go to a Star Trek convention—don’t worry, you won’t see me there. But at an Indiana Jones convention, if you could muster the enthusiasm to go, you might see anyone.
Sports is only a half exception. You have devoted fans and “fair-weather” fans, depending on whether they identify with “their team” no matter matter what or only if it’s doing well.
Perhaps fandom is a function of having appealing qualities/message and being able to create identification. I think there are certain identification “holes” here on Less Wrong so if someone with authority (like Robin) started filling those holes there would be sub-fandoms.