How Can Football Be The Most Popular Thread??

[RiRi 7,912]

@Dr-David-Banner All right. Thanks for your response and I see what you mean, but like you said, at least you've aired your thoughts and have gotten some responses about what you wondered about. 

[Asgardian 4,584]

I think if we start to over analyse the forum based on which threads are most popular the atmosphere on here really will fall flat. 

[RiRi 7,912]

6 minutes ago, Asgardian said:

I think if we start to over analyse the forum based on which threads are most popular the atmosphere on here really will fall flat. 

What do you mean by it will fall flat? I'm just asking because I don't understand what that means. 

I probably wouldn't involve myself in overanalyzing which threads are most popular as that would take a lot of time, unless I find myself with a lot of time, but at least not for the time being. By overanalyzing in this case, I mean writing down which ones have the most posts, etc. 

[Nesf 9,159]

Actually, the football thread is not the thread with the most replies, if that is a measure of popularity - the longest thread on the whole forum is the chit chat thread (autistics are not 'supposed' to like chit chat, either), also the ranting thread and "what are you doing now" thread have more replies. If you look that these threads, with the exception of the ranting thread, these are the kind of threads that lend themselves to short, sharp posts. Also, if you look at the football thread, it is basically the same three members posting, and the posts are all very short. Threads with longer, more detailed and analytical posts tend not to get so many replies and peter out very quickly. Also, many of the posts in the football thread are made by one person making many frequent posts, one after the other, often as many as five or six in a row. So in conclusion, football is not popular in general, but has a huge thread dedicated to it because two or three people post regularly, and one person @Tylermc in particular.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

The amusing thing there is I've no idea who posted in the Football thread. I wouldn't have glanced. I think maybe I did view the first post a long time ago. I assumed for that many comments there must have been scores of posters.
I think where I irritated a few people was by centralising football as the source of my unease. In reality my point runs way deeper than football. It's actually inspired by team mentality, which covers school and work. Most aspies struggle to fit into structured team environments and get anxious. Yet society centres around teams and the concept that those who aren't good in a team are failures. This explains why footballers draw such huge salaries. Footballers draw thousands (unlike the sixties where football was a healthy, family sport). Yet juxtaposed against that, you could randomly ask anyone you meet, and hardly anyone would want to be an astrophysisist, pianist, lead guitarist, and so on. At least where I live. Career wise the younger people have been pushed into banking (a team environment), or whatever pays the most. Unfortunately, success today is based on fitting into teams, being popular, knowing the right people. Scores of high paid jobs I concluded simply aren't economically or scientifically useful but socially based. In Japan, the rule was to be successful you needed a job "as a team player" in a big firm, with a big car and lots of business friends. I'm told Asia is one of the worst locations to be autistic.
Often we under-estimate how important "teams" are. Even as mentioned above, The Beatles had to be "processed" to ever stand a chance of making it. I know that was one factor that really pissed off John Lennon. I think he was the member who struggled most to fit into a team mentality and partly it led to the group split.

[Sanctuary 472]

1 hour ago, Nesf said:

Actually, the football thread is not the thread with the most replies, if that is a measure of popularity - the longest thread on the whole forum is the chit chat thread (autistics are not 'supposed' to like chit chat, either), also the ranting thread and "what are you doing now" thread have more replies. If you look that these threads, with the exception of the ranting thread, these are the kind of threads that lend themselves to short, sharp posts. Also, if you look at the football thread, it is basically the same three members posting, and the posts are all very short. Threads with longer, more detailed and analytical posts tend not to get so many replies and peter out very quickly. Also, many of the posts in the football thread are made by one person making many frequent posts, one after the other, often as many as five or six in a row. So in conclusion, football is not popular in general, but has a huge thread dedicated to it because two or three people post regularly, and one person @Tylermc in particular.

Very perceptive comments Nesf. The popularity of threads - of lack of popularity - can't be measured just by how many posts there have been. The most genuinely popular threads are going to be ones where lots of different members are commenting and responding to what others are saying. In some cases people may be interested in certain topics but choose not to contribute to threads. For example I am interested in football (though not as much as when I was younger) but I haven't participated in that thread. I principally come to Asperclick to find out more about AS and how it affects people's lives. Occasionally I might respond to threads on other topics but not often and this might be true of other members. If we had specific threads devoted to "popular music" or "television" these might attract rather more responses than the one on football but even then there will be members who really like those things but don't talk about them here. Sometimes a potentially very popular thread peters out very quickly, perhaps for very  mundane reasons as some of the likelier members to post being away at the time, while other threads on apparently mundane topics really take off because they somehow capture the imagination.

David did raise an interesting question about whether people with AS are likely to be more or less interested in football. My own guess is that overall they are probably not as interested in football as the neurotypical population but that there will be many Aspies who are interested in the game - some very deeply, others more casually.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

Yes, she did make a good point. I was wondering if the electronics forum I parted from is really what it appeared to be. On there there was a dominant group of posters who seemed to post more than the rest. Yet there was one guy in Cornwall I got on fine with. He was probably the one who had the most knowledge. When there were complaints about my using American terminology, he defended my use of the terms. For example I call valves "tubes" as in my textbooks and that provoked hostility. Not only that but a lurking electronics lecturer appeared once out of thin air and was angry with the moderator. I had quoted from that guy's site and the site was then criticized by the moderator. I think on websites there are people who post more but lots of lurkers.
Here, though, I think we need more threads. Personally I'd like to see some deeper conversation - even if it"s movie genres, music, acting. I'm happy to see football do well but nobody is sharing their interests or views. That was my point basically. If someone has a good thread to share, why not give it a go?

[Asgardian 4,584]

A thread questioning the football thread being popular rapidly becoming more popular itself.

How ironic 

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

The irony may also be the original football thread reanimates due to the publicity here. I do find it odd how the title seemed to be enticing. I never expected hardly anyone to notice. I was a bit bored on the night and just posted.
Now I would feel less guilty if the said original thread does get a second boost.

[Asgardian 4,584]

18 minutes ago, Dr-David-Banner said:

The irony may also be the original football thread reanimates due to the publicity here. I do find it odd how the title seemed to be enticing. I never expected hardly anyone to notice. I was a bit bored on the night and just posted.
Now I would feel less guilty if the said original thread does get a second boost.

You suggested in your first post that football isn't something someone autistic should be interested in. You then went on to suggest it was "such a pity" that it was the most popular thread instead of something else. If you don't like the reaction then perhaps you shouldn't have started the thread 

[Sanctuary 472]

23 hours ago, Dr-David-Banner said:

Yes, she did make a good point. I was wondering if the electronics forum I parted from is really what it appeared to be. On there there was a dominant group of posters who seemed to post more than the rest. Yet there was one guy in Cornwall I got on fine with. He was probably the one who had the most knowledge. When there were complaints about my using American terminology, he defended my use of the terms. For example I call valves "tubes" as in my textbooks and that provoked hostility. Not only that but a lurking electronics lecturer appeared once out of thin air and was angry with the moderator. I had quoted from that guy's site and the site was then criticized by the moderator. I think on websites there are people who post more but lots of lurkers.
Here, though, I think we need more threads. Personally I'd like to see some deeper conversation - even if it"s movie genres, music, acting. I'm happy to see football do well but nobody is sharing their interests or views. That was my point basically. If someone has a good thread to share, why not give it a go?

Threads take off or fall flat on all forums for all sorts of reasons. The attitudes you mention on the electronics forum may well deter someone really interested in the topic from posting or maybe they'll avoid particular threads or issues where they feel they won't get a receptive response. They may still like to read that forum and its threads though. Some people avoid posting on threads not because of any perceived hostility but because the threads seem to be almost a private conversation between two or three people, or even sometimes in effect a monologue by one contributor. Perhaps surprisingly some threads offering provocative views on controversial topics attract little response because other members don't want to be drawn into a debate or feel certain issues are almost "too hot to handle". Sometimes the thread despite a broad title just seems to have gone a particular path that doesn't entice other contributions. However all these threads can still be useful to those who post on them - even if it's just to express their views and feelings -  and members can find contributions interesting even if they choose not to reply to them.

Alternatively threads that take off may do so because of some very interesting comments that spark discussion and sometimes debate. I would be quite interested in threads which - for example - explored football and its appeal / relationship to AS in a more analytical way but it's also fine if people want to talk about it more straightforwardly.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

" I would be quite interested in threads which - for example - explored football and its appeal / relationship to AS in a more analytical way"

I'll be happy to do that. Psychology, environment, structure of society and team sports as a kind of model for economic competion. Let's not forget how Rugby and Rowing was adopted in Eaton and Cambridge.
I will clarify too, if it helps. I'm not alien to sports. I know quite a bit about boxing, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton and the dates of the title fights. I found out too that Tesla hung out socially with boxers. Also the Giro and Tour De France are team sports - I used to like to follow it and once lived right by Miguel Indurain.
What surprised me wasn't that football had followers here but the extent of its popularity. More than anything the apparent imbalance.

[Asgardian 4,584]

Then perhaps there is a misconception here that only certain interests can have an analytical element. Personally, all of my interests I can look at in an analytical manner. Obviously with sports like Formula One and football it is things like statistics and results. But equally so, I can also be analytical about things like comic book movies. For example, I will regularly make a mental tally of how many films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe Iron Man or Captain America have been in. Or I might try and visualise what would have happened if Anakin Skywalker hadn't become Darth Vader in Star Wars. You get the idea. My point is that we are on the autistic spectrum. We can make anything into something analytical. In short, don't look at an interest someone has and write it off just because you don't see the appeal. That person does and it means a lot to them, more than anyone else can probably comprehend.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

Actually, I think I ought to apologise to the football group and maybe then start afresh. I hope they carry on and enjoy that thread.
The lesson is appearances can be deceptive. Football may well be a minority here but just lots of posts among a small group.
In my case The Beatles is close to a special interest and yet this was a hugely popular group (even more so than football). The downside is I don't live in 1967.
Anyway for the record, I do offer apologies to anyone who got offended.
Added to that I liked football better in the days of Gordon Banks who lived locally. Most sports I liked in an earlier era. For example I hate modern boxing but loved the Tyson era.

[Asgardian 4,584]

45 minutes ago, Dr-David-Banner said:

Actually, I think I ought to apologise to the football group and maybe then start afresh. I hope they carry on and enjoy that thread.
The lesson is appearances can be deceptive. Football may well be a minority here but just lots of posts among a small group.
In my case The Beatles is close to a special interest and yet this was a hugely popular group (even more so than football). The downside is I don't live in 1967.
Anyway for the record, I do offer apologies to anyone who got offended.
Added to that I liked football better in the days of Gordon Banks who lived locally. Most sports I liked in an earlier era. For example I hate modern boxing but loved the Tyson era.
 

Well I definitely respect you for saying this. In that case I would also like to apologise to you because I mistook your posting of this thread for something it was not.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

Thanks for that. I was basically in the wrong as people should feel free to choose whatever interest they wish and discuss it. Hopefully I will be a bit more careful in future.

[Asgardian 4,584]

6 minutes ago, Dr-David-Banner said:

Thanks for that. I was basically in the wrong as people should feel free to choose whatever interest they wish and discuss it. Hopefully I will be a bit more careful in future.

I respect your honesty.

[Primeape 3,670]

@Dr-David-Banner thank you for saying sorry, i appericate it and im glad you accept that people can be intrested in anything they want

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

As Sanctuary suggested, maybe a bad thread can be changed to something better. I figure maybe stereotypes could be a safer direction. I have an episode of The Incredible Hulk called The Confession. I viewed the plot somehow as a kind of play on Aspergers. The aspie type in the episode works in computer data and witnesses Dr David Banner change into The Hulk. Shirts and trouser legs ripping and turning green (somehow the pants always stay on). Anyway, this changes the aspie guy's perspective. He has no girlfriend and is always ignored. He wears glasses and a dry, boring personality. Thus, this guy winds up going to the main offices of The National Register. On arrival, he meets the top Hulk theme reporter and a female trainee journalist. He then tells them both he came to confess and turn himself in and said he was The Hulk. The head reporter then bursts into laughter. So, I figure there is a stereotype aspie. Clearly it is just a stereotype or more common encarnation. I don't quite fit the stereotype myself but I'd say the steretype aspie is: Someone who wears glasses and very polite. Probably employed in IT or maybe in a lab. Good academic record. No girlfriend and pretty much ignored. No flashy car. No good at flirting or small talk. Boring hobby like stamp collecting.
How do I fit? Yes, I wear glasses. No I'm not polite and can even be a bit rude (not intended). I'm pretty much unemployable. I do have female friends (currently one very good friend although this took time). I had a poor school record but improved later in life. No car. I can flirt a bit and make small talk but often go quiet for long periods or moody. Special interests are many.
I suspect I don't strictly have AS but either autism or HFA.
I always figured somehow HFA is a bit different. They usually show signs of being slow to read at school which definitely happened in my case. They also have more than one special interest. I even read some analyse all the time non stop.

[Nesf 9,159]

7 hours ago, Dr-David-Banner said:

suspect I don't strictly have AS but either autism or HFA.
I always figured somehow HFA is a bit different.

HFA is diagnosed when there is a significant speech delay, Asperger's when there is no speech delay. People with HFA are more likely to have more significant sensory issues and learning difficulties. Otherwise, autism is autism.

[Gone away 2,316]

I thought the trend (in the UK anyway) is to move away from sub diagnosis's of a main diagnosis.
Hence the asc or asd diagnosis.

Diagnosed as on the spectrum means (to me) that people move all around the spectrum at different times or periods in their lives. This will depend on their ability to function - which will be fluid and variable rather than set rigid.
I tend to see the terms HFA and LFA as insults / not that helpful and certainly lacking accuracy

[Gone away 2,316]

2 hours ago, Nesf said:

People with HFA are more likely to have more significant sensory issues and learning difficulties

I don't think thats right

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

I see it somewhat differently. I started to see similarities between autism, non-autism as "relativity".
According to my theory as it stands, autism doesn't exist as a single condition but as relative along a scale. This may simply be the way people view spectrum anyway.
Imagine you have a 6 volt battery. If we take zero volts as "standard" we can say the voltage is 6 volts +. Then assume we next take a 20 volt battery. "Relative to the 6 volt battery, the 20 volt battery is "more positive still". The crucial factor though is the 6 volt battery is "negative" compared to the 20 volt one but "positive" relative to zero = normal.
These factors may perhaps be applied to traits.
I think maybe Aspergers is possibly a relative condition and if we removed all NT's from the equation, we'd wind up with a pecking order just the same. Some would maybe have lower empathy compared to others.
However there is always I figure a point where purely relative to NT's a person is "cut off" from normality, be it 6, 20, 30. 200 and so on.
Normal would be zero.
Moreover in all electrical frequences you have a sine wave cycle (or other wave) of zero, positive peak, negative peak, peak to peak and average mean. It even applies to our voice or audio frequencies which may vary from person to person.

[Dr-David-Banner 1,074]

"I don't think thats right"

Good point. Really all Asperger did was gather up lots of kids who had mental problems. He listed what they had in common and tried to stress the positive traits. He hoped to save them from the Nazi cleansing program. Gradually AS evolved as a diagnosis. Yet I find there are often misunderstandings. Such as aspies are supposed to gather information about a favourite subject but show no genuine understanding of it. Not true at all. Also I think the empathy trait is misunderstood.

[Sanctuary 472]

A notable stereotype that exists within followers of football - and has some relationship to AS - is that of the "football statistician". Someone who collects statistics on football tends to be treated as a figure of fun. Sometimes he (the stereotype is always of a man) might be called affectionately but a little condescendingly called a "statto" but is often considered a rather "sad" or strange figure, probably with no social life, who misses the point of football which is watching or playing the game. The stereotype might also be that the football statistician is someone who is "boring" and at risk of droning on about trivial details which they find interesting but very few others do. We can see the obvious overlaps here with stereotypes of someone with AS and their "obsessive" interest which supposedly consists of gathering huge amounts of "facts", often numbers, but who has very little to offer in terms of real insight.

I am a football statistician  I have to admit that these days I rarely watch games but spend a lot of time gathering and analysing statistics although in my younger days I did watch a lot of football. I suppose our interests do change over time and these days football has become very expensive whether it is actually attending games or paying for TV subscriptions. As I now rarely go to matches attending one is a big break from my routine and it puts me off going. Attending a game in the cold and wet is also a deterrent even though I did so hundreds of times when I was younger. I'd far rather watch on TV now but only to see my team who are rarely televised so the opportunity tends not to arise. I do feel bad about not going to games but I just haven't got the interest now (or the money!)

As regards football statistics I'd like to feel I use them for insight and analysis and not - as the stereotype portrays - just gathering them for their sake. I would always prefer to call myself a football researcher or historian as the "statistician" term has too negative a reputation. However I rarely mention what I do to others because I know it seems odd or even pointless to many of them. Again this contradicts the stereotype of the Aspie who goes around boring people with their "obsessive" interest. I do spend a lot of time on these interests but I know they're unusual and of little interest to others so I don't talk about them. The irony is that if I were being paid to do such research then it would no doubt be seen as perfectly acceptable as the assumption would be I only do the research as part of a job, not out of genuine interest. The fact remains though that people who do such research in their spare time, whether they have AS or not, can ultimately produce findings and insights that are useful to others although it may take a long time for them to have this opportunity.