My initial thought is video games, everything has pros and cons, sure. However, it feels like anyone not into video games views them extrodinarly negatively. Any other hobbies parallel to that in your opinion?
My initial thought is video games, everything has pros and cons, sure. However, it feels like anyone not into video games views them extrodinarly negatively. Any other hobbies parallel to that in your opinion?
Yeah, but one person’s “drinking” is another persons “collecting and curating vintage wines”. There’s a whole lot of leeway with the “unacceptable” hobbies depending on prestige. Gaming itself has a spectrum there; candy crush isn’t really a hobby, a collection of rare arcade machines definitely is.
And I don’t necessarily get a great reaction to my productive hobbies, either, if they’re not correctly culture coded.
Edit: Somehow me deep diving on Wikipedia doesn’t count, but the next person over gets plaudits for trashy novels, because they’re on trees. That’s a pretty direct inversion.
Yes.
My point wasn’t to categorize certain hobbies as necessarily good or bad in a moralistic, but to explain which things are socially acceptable to have as hobbies. I don’t decide what is socially acceptable. Society does. I am just observing and explaining my observations.
I just don’t observe that myself, though.
If that was the way it worked, it would make sense, but in reality it’s all about some kind of social pecking order and posing within it.
I mean, if that’s the way you want to look at it, go ahead. It doesn’t seem like a very friendly world to live in, but you are welcome to it. However, here is how I look at it.
Humans observe other humans. They see humans doing things that are good for themselves and others, and they see humans doing things that are bad for themselves and others. They lump these actions into broad categories with only the necessary nuance needed to live their own personal lives. Then when they hear of a human who greatly values doing things in one of those categories, their interest in interacting more with that human increases or decreases based on their preconcieved notion of the thing. Humans communicate with each other, sharing information. And via communication through all of society, broad cultural consenses emerge about the acceptableness or unacceptableness of being heavily invested in a certain activity.
So the thing to realize is that if you feel like you are often socially rejected when you talk about your hobbies, it may just be that you need to rephrase them, and they will become very interesting to others. For example, if you like reading about history on Wiki, you can say “I like to learn about history”, and this might lead to a discussion of horse technology in the Mongol empire or something.
And if someone else says they like reading, but only actually read the most basic trash novels - well whatever. That’s not your problem. You are too busy talking about horse mounted archery.
But doesn’t being factually correct matter more than being comfortable? (I’m honestly not sure, asking that, whether I’m showing my ass, or if everyone sees it the way I do)
You’re right that is based on observation. The prestige of something depends on the wealth, competence and cultural identity of the people seen to be doing it. Great (and now dead and uncontroversial) thinkers through the ages have read paper books. Posh people are depicted enjoying wine, and I’ve known rich people who like whisky. It’s hard to afford rare arcade machines, but anybody can get hooked on candy crush.
Yup. People may or may not also enjoy history or whatever else, but it’s a valid answer and there’s no “wet fart” kind of reaction.
Another one I use is “I like anything that can be learned from a book”. It sounds smart, and it’s not untrue, since the medium could be either. The fact I don’t use paper books very often doesn’t come up unless they ask for details, and nobody has to date.