They're athletes not rocket scientists:

September 4, 2002 1:00 PM

They're athletes not rocket scientists:

Reporter: "President Bush has been holding town meetings across the country about Title IX. He's considering changing this important legislation that's helped women get involved in sports. If you could say something to President Bush, what would you say?"

Capriati: "I have no idea what Title IX is. Sorry."

Single-mindedness is quickly becoming a pre-requisite for reaching elite status in almost any pursuit or occupation. Are we forsaking ourselves and our children by continuing to reward such single-mindedness with fame and fortune?
posted by ajr (37 comments total)

Reminds me of Rick Mercer's Speaking to Americans prank, where he gets George Bush (then Texas Governor) to say, "I'm glad to have the support of [Canadian] Prime Minister Jean Poutine." For the less-versed, "poutine" is a Quebec dish that consists of fries, cheese curds and gravy. For the even less-versed, Quebec is a province of Canada. For the even less-less-versed, maybe you have a shot for presidency :).
posted by freakystyley at 1:16 PM on September 4, 2002

In other news, Britney Spears has no idea how ASCAP calculates her royalties.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:18 PM on September 4, 2002

It's about time someone found a good topic to bring this up with...

Today, our society is more and more idolizing those individuals who deserve less and less of our attention. Athletes, rappers, and basically all kinds of entertainers. Nobody will ever know the face of the researcher who finds the cure for cancer, but we'll keep buying sodas from the star basketball player/wife beater and CDs from the gangsta rapper/neighborhood thug wannabe.

Have our priorities always been this warped, or is this just a new phenomenon?
posted by eas98 at 1:23 PM on September 4, 2002

Have our priorities always been this warped, or is this just a new phenomenon?

Yes, we've always been this warped. In my opinion, it's no different than the great warrior in legends and mythologies. I don't see many great epics written about the smart people (Well, maybe Socrates). I think sports stars have replaced our notion of heroic warriors or soldiers in a time of anonymous armies.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:31 PM on September 4, 2002

eas98: Have our priorities always been this warped, or is this just a new phenomenon?

Personally, I don't think it's a recent phenomenon, but I see it increasing to dangerous levels. Sociologically speaking, media has given new generations the crazy idea that we need more than we already have. In the idea, this constant need creates a sense of void that can only be filled with idolizing (seeking a standard) and consumption (wanton spending and eating). ... IMHO, of course :).
posted by freakystyley at 1:36 PM on September 4, 2002

There are great epics written about Socrates?
posted by UnReality at 1:36 PM on September 4, 2002

I always heard that in ancient Rome (winning) Gladiators were treated as heroes. People would even pay for their sweat (among other things) to use as a cologne. So this is not really a new thing, is it?
posted by Dr_Octavius at 1:38 PM on September 4, 2002

[Insert mournful railings against our culture of consumerism and the disgraceful pay of artists, teachers, firemen, etc. here]
posted by gsteff at 1:39 PM on September 4, 2002

Stan Chin: it's no different than the great warrior in legends and mythologies...

I would beg to differ. The difference is that our (recent generations) priorities/values are grossly misaligned. People who idolized great warriors (and whatnot) in the past were still able to carry on with their lives. Today, the quantity of profoundly lost idolizers has increased substantially thanks to the hypnotic and brainwashing power of modern media.
posted by freakystyley at 1:42 PM on September 4, 2002

Rocket scientists can be pretty single-minded, too. I've known plenty of academics who were utter naïfs outside their narrow field of specialization.
posted by mcwetboy at 1:44 PM on September 4, 2002

[Insert mournful railings against our culture of consumerism and the disgraceful pay of artists, teachers, firemen, etc. here]

I will happily do so.. We all seem to agree that it's always been this way.. Gladiators, heroes, etc.. But aren't we supposed to be a more enlightened society now? Weren't those time barbaric? I know, I know, we're just as barbaric now as ever. But must it be so? Perhaps this is why.. Our teachers make 35k a year if they're lucky, while many athletes make that in a day. They (athletes) refuse to be role-models though, so the people we entrust our future to (teachers) are asked to be everything while we pay them nothing.

Maybe that is why we stagnate as a society.
posted by eas98 at 1:46 PM on September 4, 2002

freakystyley:

Sorry, I reread your response a couple of times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

People who idolized great warriors (and whatnot) in the past were still able to carry on with their lives.

Many people watch sports as just a hobby. Actually, mostly everybody but sports media do.

Today, the quantity of profoundly lost idolizers has increased substantially thanks to the hypnotic and brainwashing power of modern media.

I have no clue what you just said.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:52 PM on September 4, 2002

Sociologically speaking, media has given new generations the crazy idea that we need more than we already have. In the idea, this constant need creates a sense of void that can only be filled with idolizing (seeking a standard) and consumption (wanton spending and eating).

I don't think it's a very new idea...
posted by hilker at 1:53 PM on September 4, 2002

Rocket scientists can be pretty single-minded, too. I've known plenty of academics who were utter naïfs outside their narrow field of specialization.

Absolutely. They can barely find the time to get a haircut, let alone learn about something outside the realm of quantum chromodynamics. Snark aside, it's really true, especially of the hard science professors I've met here at my university.

People who idolized great warriors (and whatnot) in the past were still able to carry on with their lives.

Let us not forget the wonderful ideals of the warrior-poet and philosopher-king. Hmm... why can't we have a philosopher-king? I want one!

They (athletes) refuse to be role-models though, so the people we entrust our future to (teachers) are asked to be everything while we pay them nothing. Maybe that is why we stagnate as a society.

Eh. I think the facts you present are evidence of the reason, not the reason, that we stagnate. I think the problem is more of general ignorance as a society. There are very many who aren't ignorant, witness the majority of MeFites, but look at the majority of the world populace...
posted by The Michael The at 1:54 PM on September 4, 2002

The desire to have someone to look up to has always been around. I think that in the past, this was split between heroic, mythical figures and exemplary people of personal acquaintance, e.g. teachers. Nowadays, large numbers of people seem to latch on to people who have a 'media presence' and treat them as though they are personal friends. I think that damage is caused to these individuals because there is no way to have a beneficial emotional relationship with someone who doesn't know you.

As an ex-Rocket scientist, some of the stereotyping is getting a bit harsh - but then again, maybe that's why I never made it as a first grade rocket scientist ;<)
posted by daveg at 2:00 PM on September 4, 2002

So, this ought to spawn a debate (as Ayn Rand usually does), but I think this quote from "The Fountainhead" is appropriate for this thread:

"Nothing is given to man on earth . Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways-- by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary."

I take a slightly more nuanced view of this quote than Rand would. In today's context I would say that most people refuse to use their minds for anything but the processing of useless junk. If Bush were less interested in "looking good" than in getting the facts straight, I would not care. But that's not what people want.

I say, let it all go to hell and then let those of us who can put things back together do so without being bothered.
posted by tgrundke at 2:01 PM on September 4, 2002

Capriati didn't know what Title IX was? Tee hee! She must be so stupid! Tee hee!

Give me a break. For all you smart alecks out there, how many of you can tell me what Title X is?

It's a far more important piece of legislation in American history and probably has a greater impact on your life (and Capriati's) than any silly sports bill (assuming you are an American).

Does the fact that you didn't know what Title X is mean that you are "single-minded" and should be ridiculed?

It wasn't like she didn't know how many states there were, or where Canada is on a map, or that H2O is water.
posted by grum@work at 2:05 PM on September 4, 2002

I say, let it all go to hell and then let those of us who can put things back together do so without being bothered.

My philosophy on life.
posted by gsteff at 2:06 PM on September 4, 2002

Maybe she's never heard of title IX because she's plain old never needed to know about it?

Directly from the article: You hate to go overboard on Capriati, who wasn't alive when Title IX was created in 1972 and who turned pro as a teenager and thus was in no position either to benefit from the legislation or to become enmeshed in its controversies.

Heck. I was halfway through college before I ever heard about title IX. Does that make me or anybody else like me self absorbed and pampered? I think not. At least she was honest and withheld an opinion on a topic she knows nothing about, which is more than I can say for most public figures these days ;)
posted by contessa at 2:08 PM on September 4, 2002

For those of you talking about pop culture and worship, I have two words for you: American Idol. How someone becomes an idol by winning a contest I have yet to determine. Anyway.

I agree with the concept of Title IX, and I hope that what he means by 'changing' it is just a tweak here and there to fix the obvious issues with it, not the idea that it represents, and here's why: Title IX (even though it is two years older than I am) let me play Little League baseball in a town of less than 1000 people, where nobody said I could or should. I did. I worked harder because even then I knew that people were wanting me to fail so no other girls could play. I was the only player in the league that hit a home run. I couldn't have done that otherwise, and I carry that around with me always. A whole town didn't want me to play, and not only did I play, I played well. It makes me feel better on days like today, my six month anniversary of active (but unsuccessful) job searching.
posted by verso at 2:15 PM on September 4, 2002

Hmm. Back to the point of Capriati and Title IX. Since she never played for a college (or for a high school), since she would never had to worry about not being able to play tennis because of her gender, she probably never had a reason to think (or inform herself) about Title IX. Is Capriati some brainless athlete that only knows how to play tennis? Maybe. But she also might have a limited range of knowledge, like all people. I'm sure everyone of us could be asked a question that we would not be qualified to answer because of our ignorance on the subject. We might expect Capriati to know something about Title IX since she is a woman and an athlete. But in reality it has very little relevance in her life. I'm not suggesting that as a society and culture, we do not give too much importance to celebrity and/or singular accomplishments. And, yes, athletes are overly valued in our day and age, which no doubt says something about our day and age. Plenty of scholars/writers have noted this before (Boorstin, Postman, Gabler, Blonsky, Debord, Marshall, and so on), especially its relationship with media. BUT we must stop unfairly rolling our eyes everytime someone is unable to answer a question that we know, as if all people should know what we know, as if there is not a question that we do not know.
posted by jacknose at 2:43 PM on September 4, 2002

In terms of impressing thekids, it seems to me that the determination and level of skill professional athletes attain more than outweighs the negative impression of their single-mindedness. Frankly, that itself is a skill, and most of us can't master it (probably shouldn't, either). I doubt most people look at professional athletes and say "God, he's dumb. Therefore, I'll be dumb too." It seems there are a million influences on our kids, each of which will completely determine how they turn out. Makes more sense to say that they are affected by a wide variety of inputs, and - being optimistic - can usually separate the good from the bad.
posted by risenc at 2:55 PM on September 4, 2002

Taken at face-value, the exchange might be interpreted as an insult directed at Capriati. However, it was intended to highlight the sacrifices that one must make to succeed today. Capriati is certainly more than a brainless athlete, and I admire her commitment to success.


The point is that almost anyone who is considered elite in our society must sacrifice a part of themselves. Generally speaking, successful people of any type (athletes included) are disciplined, intelligent, and *most importantly* well-rounded people. However, it is almost impossible to attain elite status in today's society without giving up a large portion of what makes one well-rounded (i.e. other interests, friends, family, etc.).


As the article indicates, professional athletes are living a "bubble-like existence in which the truly elite jocks [are] actually expected to be nothing but." Arguments can be made that the same applies to scientists, politicians, businessmen, etc. The elite standard varies within different circles and doesn't necessarily correspond to conventional fame and fortune, but my limited observations indicate that those who are considered elite by the public (and their peers) have given up a lot of themselves to get there. There are certainly exceptions (Bobby Jones), but today's specialized society does not afford one the opportunity to be both elite and multi-faceted. Successful and multi-faceted, yes, but such individuals usually aren't considered idols.
posted by ajr at 3:18 PM on September 4, 2002

"God, he's dumb. Therefore, I'll be dumb too."

From an external perspective, the US seems to have far better sporting role models (he says, waiting to be shot down). Most (?) main stream professional sports stars seem to have at least been to college, if not graduated.

There's a strong tendency in the UK for sports stars to opt out of education around the age of 14. This is just about OK for those who succeed, but there's a huge number of teenagers who ignore education because they think that becoming a sports star is a career move.
posted by daveg at 3:22 PM on September 4, 2002

When somebody brought up title IX to me the other day, I had to ask what he was talking about. I have broad knowledge of a number of things, but rules about the way college sports money must be spent isn't part of that knowledge. I really don't think this refelcts on anything.
posted by willnot at 4:31 PM on September 4, 2002

Although Title IX has occasionally made the headlines recently--wasn't it just on the front page of USA Today?--most of its "media play" since it became a done deal has been in academe-related publications (e.g., The Chronicle of Higher Education). Whatever its symbolic value at the college level, Title IX doesn't necessarily have much name recognition outside a particular coterie. It's a large coterie, but a coterie all the same.

As for the bubble effect: perhaps that explains why I was at the University of Chicago for three years before realizing that the school actually had a football team...
posted by thomas j wise at 5:11 PM on September 4, 2002

Personally, I don't think it's a recent phenomenon, but I see it increasing to dangerous levels.

How old are you? People have been saying everything's been getting worse since they could write (and probably longer) Is the world worse then it was in 4000bce? I don't really think so.


Today, the quantity of profoundly lost idolizers has increased substantially thanks to the hypnotic and brainwashing power of modern media.


Hahah... What?
posted by delmoi at 5:11 PM on September 4, 2002

I think jacknose was right on with what he posted above.

Capriati was a tennis celebrity at age eight. There has been more tennis knowledge crammed into her than most people would hope for. Perish the thought that by her late 20s, she should do something in her spare time besides study the politics of high school and college athletics. So she doesn't know what title IX is, so what? It certainly doesn't mean she's stupid, and she doesn't live in a bubble, either. In fact, Capriati, who had a serious burnout and withdrawal from public life before making her comeback, is probably more aware of the strange and isolated nature of celebrity life than most celebrities, and certainly than the author of this article.

Maybe she reads Pynchon. Maybe she avidly follows the situation in the middle east.

And, for what it's worth, maybe nothing, I had no idea what Title IX was before today, and now that I know, I think it's a bad idea that is pretty irrelevant to my life.
posted by bingo at 5:26 PM on September 4, 2002

Stan Chin: Sorry, I reread your response a couple of times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

Sorry, my bad. I was speaking specifically 'bout young people who abandon all reason to pursue hoop dreams, but more specifically, dreams of stardom and fame. Yeah, I kinda went off on a tangent there :).
posted by freakystyley at 9:11 PM on September 4, 2002

Stan Chin: I don't see many great epics written about the smart people

The Odyssey, The Mahabharata, Faust, Bugs Bunny...
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 12:50 AM on September 5, 2002

Odysseus was already a great and heroic soldier from the Trojan War. Haven't touched the Mahabharata because it's about 5 times longer than the King James Bible. Faust is more of a tragic opera whose main character Dr.Faust is a obsessive lunatic who makes a number of boneheaded deals with Satan. Bugs Bunny is a mischevous Loki-type creature, never actually doing anything remotely admirable and spends most of his time pissing off other creatures like Daffy Duck and the Abominable Snowman for sheer selfish enjoyment.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:00 AM on September 5, 2002

Given our current society's tendency to sit on our fat duffs and spend all day debating on MetaFilter about the supposed intellectual deficiencies of pro atheletes, as opposed to going out and getting some exercise, there may be some good things we can learn from pro atheletes as role models.

I think Capriati is a particularly good example of someone whose life offers numerous lessons for the rest of us. Think about it.

Also, with respect to "Title IX" vs. "Title X" and so on... I'm a lawyer. If someone asks me about "Title IX," my response would be, "Of what law?" There are many Title IX's floating out there, and the one in question here has acheived household name status, but only to those involved in the political debate surrounding the law. Most of America wouldn't have a clue about what it is, and most of America doesn't have a clue about
its effects.
posted by mikewas at 7:11 AM on September 5, 2002

I always heard that in ancient Rome (winning) Gladiators were treated as heroes. People would even pay for their sweat (among other things) to use as a cologne. So this is not really a new thing, is it?

Not new at all. It's a symptom of a thriving society (current economic issues aside). Higher importance is put on entertainment and athletics, and therefore the people involved in them. Our heroes would be vastly different people if we we a struggling, starving, poor third-world country. In fact, we wouldn't even HAVE those people to look up to under those circumstances. Brittany would be starving along with everyone else... cute, but hungry.
posted by Witty at 7:18 AM on September 5, 2002

An (unemployed) rocket scientist tried to cheat on her alcoholic husband with me once, and I still don't know what Title IX is. Probably has something to do with finishing off the latest Sith-sponsored conspiracy that arose within the ranks of the New Republic. Or is that Episode IX?
posted by Foosnark at 8:05 AM on September 5, 2002

UnReality : Actually, yes, there are no fewer than three (3) books about Socrates by none other than Plato himself. Plato's Apology, Phaedo and Crito cover Socrates' B.C. 399 death as a martyr due to his unswerving devotion to the truth.
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 1:14 PM on September 5, 2002

Yeah, but come on, those are hardly "epics."
posted by bingo at 1:27 AM on September 6, 2002

"...posted by Stan Chin at 1:00 AM PST"

Stan Chin, you are my hero, even if I disagree with you on this one -- real MeFites post late in the night!. ;-)

Odysseus was already a great and heroic soldier from the Trojan War.

Yes, but unlike the other Achaeans (e.g. Ajax) Odysseus is distinguished not by brawn but by brains (e.g. the epithet "the crafty Ulysses"). Odysseus is explicitly a smart hero, the most cunning of the bunch.

Haven't touched the Mahabharata ...

Protagonist Yudhishthira, the son of Dharma, embodies justice and wisdom; virtues like strength and martial skill are embodied in his brothers, not him.

... Dr. Faust is an obsessive lunatic who makes a number of boneheaded deals with Satan.

Faust is the ultimate scholar, a master of all disciplines, who yearns for even more wisdom. Yes, he has character flaws, but they don't detract from his intellectual brilliance; indeed, hubris born of his intelligence is one of those flaws.

Besides, you're too hard on him: God believes in Faust, right? So should you. ;-)

Bugs Bunny is a mischevous Loki-type creature, never actually doing anything remotely admirable and spends most of his time pissing off other creatures like Daffy Duck and the Abominable Snowman for sheer selfish enjoyment.

Bugs is beset by bigger, stronger, meaner opponents, and triumphs using his wits. That's the definition of smart hero.

(And I disagree that Bugs "never does anything remotely admirable." Yes, especially in the early cartoons he is a troublemaker, but in the middle and later years it's more common that he is minding his own business when a bullying interloper violates his rights and he retaliates. Perhaps this is an artifact of WW2, but I think Bugs largely represents America's view of itself: he just wants to be left alone.)

To summarize: I'm not saying that these protagonists are necessarily scholars, that they are necessarily admirable, or that they do not necessarily possess other virtues besides brains. But in all these cases, the story does indeed focus on the hero's brains, not his brawn, and uses his brains to distinguish him from both his enemies and even his friends.

Thus great epics have indeed been written about smart people, and that's a good thing.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 2:29 PM on September 6, 2002