"Stick to sports"
Everyone in America has the right to speak. If you disagree, look inward ...takes are for the people, politics is a perfectly cromulent topic for all
Every once in awhile, I’ll see a professional athlete share something opinionated, provocative or just plain human online, either via news/podcast clip or social media post. Not during the game itself, but off field and on personal time. And it’s usually really good, even if I don’t agree with it. It’s good to see someone genuinely think for themselves and not just be part of the machine, a small display they’re not an NPC, and express an independent thought. I find this profoundly cool.
Yet, without fail, every time this happens, someone in the comments will rush to say the inevitable: ‘stick to sports.’ Which is honestly one of the more infantile reactions one can have here.
It’s dehumanizing to the person. An athlete is still a human being. They put their pants on one leg at a time. They have thoughts, feelings, politics. They don’t exist merely for your amusement. But that’s not how some view them when they talk off the field. Some believe the athlete is supposed to just play and talk about the game, not have contributions to any wider discourse beyond sports. Ironically, the same people will enjoy the movie Gladiator without the slightest bit of reflection - fictional worlds are more alive and authentic than their own.
Tellingly, the people who say stick to sports do it mostly to ideas they ideologically oppose. If the commentary were arbitrary or meaningless, no one would reply at all.
It’s also quite damning of modernity and the state of culture that people succumb to this thinking. That everyone must stay in their lane, at all times. If you work as a graphic designer, your only opinions should be on graphic design. Understanding other parts of the world is too hard for you, leave it to the professional take-havers, they’ll tell you what to think.
This is of course hogwash. Most people should have an opinion on many things. How could you not in modern times? Social media used right is great specifically because it encourages people to be metacognitive. And it’s interesting because for certain groups, if you express an even slightly heterodox thought without first sharing a list of credentials, they’ll throw their hands up and say, “how dare you comment on this.” Or even better, “where’s the data?.” It’s profoundly funny to me some believe you need credentials or academic research (frequently tortured) to understand the world. Or in cases there is good data on a debate, the automatic assumption is you haven’t already looked at the numbers yourself (everyone sees the same charts, everyone has incredible research tools at their fingertips …not everyone interprets things the same, that’s healthy: bull and bear case, it takes at least two sides to make a market). But the assumption to anything they disagree with, particularly ideological, is you aren’t qualified, or capable, of possibly understanding this part of the world. Stick to sports. Stay in your lane. Don’t question the manufactured consensus. How dismal to think like this.
I think these individuals have been institutionalized into collectivist/credentialed constraints and lost core principles of what it is to be an individual with their own metacognition. We will say a prayer for them.
I’d like to see not only more athletes but everyone feel safe to express themselves, especially on areas outside their field of academic study. Interesting results happen at the intersection, and anyway you have no idea the work someone has put in behind the scenes to learn about an issue or more importantly, have practical experience with it. If you’re someone always asking for ‘more data’ to see things, perhaps you should do your own research, write a piece with proof points and citations and push back. And remember, not everything requires a formal paper. Speaking of, more than 10,000 academic papers were retracted in 2023 alone, so why is this source beyond reproach? Appeal to authority retorts are from people who lack substance.
To the inspiration of today’s post, every time I write a story here a few people reply via email. The vast majority of them are positive, some are critical, but I read them all, and genuinely appreciate the feedback. But someone this week essentially told me to ‘stick to sports’ for daring to have an opinion on the waning of DEI. I cover many topics here and politics is certainly a cromulent one for a blogger that discusses trends and philosophy, but I’ve heard it one time before for a similar post, so let’s talk about it. Notable here, far more replied that they appreciated I’d cover this, and they felt similarly. Even if you disagree with that particular change in the culture, why wouldn’t you want people to share their postmortem?
In this case, perhaps I should have gotten the ‘official DEI certification’ first like Matt Walsh did in his movie. But in all seriousness, the precise problem in my sector of marketing and media is people don’t have enough pushback on ideas that seem strange, or frequently even have their own original thoughts at all. I’ve talked with peers in the business who live in LA (and beyond) about this, here’s a discussion with one on our podcast. Our sector has lost itself in becoming a cult of safetyism, similar to other creative fields. I’d like to note, none of us would even have to write on these things in the first place if everything was normal and the world was functioning well. All the insanity, and more to the point poor work, is downstream of this. The ‘stick to sports’ people are simply upset anyone is noticing. We’re not supposed to talk about these things, after all. Shut up wagie, get back to work, you are not the one to change anything.
The stick to sports commentary is especially funny here because you actually have to understand politics if you’re in marketing. Our industry just doesn’t talk about it, because it was “not PC” to notice reality. But you can’t understand audiences without understanding culture, and politics is part of this. This is precisely where Bud Light, Jaguar and others have gone wrong in recent times - they understood too little about audiences and culture, there was not enough diversity of thought in those rooms. Even expressly political marketers do poorly here, everyone saw the recent campaign ads many of which were complete unreality and rightfully panned. Democrats who actually want to win next time should listen. Note, the very same people working on those campaigns would tell me, and their users we are the ones who are wrong and that we ‘just don’t understand’ what they’re doing. Which is precisely why they underperform.
Half the marketing sector lives in an odd bubble on some basic dimensions such that they can’t even grasp simple concepts like creating a user-centric ad. Our sector has veered into full postmodern abstraction. This is on display at advertising events, in industry trades, in industry social media …and you know, in the creative work itself. They would tell users to ‘stick to sports’ for not understanding their work. But users do, and the comments are valid. Listening is a lost, but important skill.
I personally do not have a problem with outsiders of my sector saying there are problems with my sector’s work. I find it telling if you believe people shouldn’t do this, and feel so insecure you’d spend time gatekeeping critique (doesn’t even work in the internet age). Feedback is especially important in a business like marketing. But because many in the industry care more about awards, pageantry and career progression than simply generating revenue for the company and building the brand, they don’t pay attention to it. This is just like academia, a divorce from reality, a separation from the customer (in academia’s case, an insulation from the market). It’s the same story.
And remember, big problems start happening when people ignore too much of reality. There are real externalities, the financial crisis stemmed from people in that sector ignoring reality while plucky outsiders who tried to warn them were brushed off (and ultimately profited from this with a big short against the market, there’s a movie about this). If outsiders are commenting it’s likely not for attention, it’s because something is wrong. This is pretty basic stuff about how human communication and civilization work. Even animals warn each other about impending threats. I honestly think in most cases people don’t actually want to talk about things outside their work, they’d prefer to be focused on their craft. Again if everything was going well, they’d have little reason to comment.
If you are part of the stick to sports crowd I think you might also be a little depressed or nihilistic, at least when it comes to the human spirit. Perhaps without even knowing. We should encourage our fellow man to have a breadth of ideas, without the blessing of the state, institutions or credentials. Outside of areas such as medicine and physics, most things are not all that complex. We should encourage people to do their own research and explore the world from first principles. We should want a metacognitive, media literate culture, from athletes to marketers and media professionals, who do not necessarily subscribe to any one tribe, politics or religion. This would create real diversity of thought in the marketplace, something that would actually be liberal.
And if you really believe in something strongly enough to tell someone to stick to sports, don’t do that. Do what the rest of us do: start a blog or podcast and share your perspectives. Publish your own opinions, cite research you see as credible, reply to quotations from people of all sides. Make your case. Be part of the discourse instead of shouting down others. You might even have more fun. The good news here is curious humans will read with an open mind, and not dismiss ideas outright because they were told something was badspeak™, or didn’t adhere to the church. The internet removes any intellectual gatekeeping of the past quite well. You can just learn things.
For this community, I appreciate all the comments, even ones saying I’m wrong. You don’t have to agree. You can tell me you hate me. I just don’t appreciate anyone dictating what we can and cannot have opinions about. I find it hard to believe a subscriber here would think I’d publish anything in bad faith, or that I don’t spend a lot of time researching ideas and thinking about the world. If anything, politics are so bad because for years no one could comment. We want a reasonable center, not far left or right zealots running the ball. We won’t get it if you’re telling reasonable people to stick to sports.
To wrap, we’ll leave you a quote in the spirit of this discussion.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects”
—Robert A. Heinlein
Thank you for your thought-provoking piece. I'm going to double-click on the concept of "Do Your Own Research" (DYOR) that you referenced in your article by sharing a summary of the treatise "Do Your Own Research," by Nathan Ballantyne, Jared B. Celniker, and David Dunning.
Your article underscores the empowerment and individuality fostered by DYOR. As the research paper notes, DYOR can signal values like intellectual autonomy, open-mindedness, and evidence-based thinking. In an age marked by declining trust in institutions and experts, the slogan appeals to those seeking to reclaim control over their understanding of the world.
This aligns with the Enlightenment ideals of intellectual independence—encapsulated by Descartes' “Dare to think for yourself”—and underscores the role of individual curiosity in generating fresh insights and fostering critical discourse. As you rightly point out, innovation often emerges at the intersection of diverse perspectives and domains, making the encouragement of independent thought essential.
However, as the research paper highlights, the DYOR ethos is not without its complications. The authors argue that research competence hinges on two key factors: the tools required to acquire and evaluate evidence, and the "scaffolding" provided by education, social structures, and cultural context.
Without such scaffolding, individuals attempting to do their own research often lack the ability to navigate complex topics effectively. For example, the paper discusses the cognitive pitfalls of overconfidence (known as the Dunning-Kruger effect), confirmation bias, and an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, all of which can skew one’s findings and interpretations. Algorithms on platforms like YouTube, which prioritize engagement over accuracy, further exacerbate the risks of encountering biased or misleading information.
You rightly criticize the tendency to dismiss independent thinkers with the refrain, “stick to sports." Yet, as the research paper suggests, there is a vital need for "humble inquiry" when approaching subjects outside one’s expertise. Humble inquiry involves recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and seeking out reliable scaffolding—whether through credible sources, expert guidance, or structured learning—to ensure that research is both rigorous and constructive.
A particularly striking point in the research paper is that DYOR is often embraced most fervently in contexts where trust in traditional institutions is low. While skepticism can be healthy, it must be paired with a recognition of the value that expertise and consensus bring to complex issues. Encouraging lay researchers to critically evaluate their competence and to seek out diverse, credible sources can mitigate the risks of misinformation while preserving the spirit of intellectual independence.
As the research paper concludes, improving individual inquiry involves equipping people with both the skills and the humility to engage meaningfully with evidence.
As you suggest, discourse thrives when people are free to share their perspectives and question prevailing norms. However, ensuring that these contributions are informed and constructive requires a balance between intellectual autonomy and deference to expertise. By promoting a culture of both curiosity and humility, we can create a more informed and metacognitive society, where independent thought complements—rather than undermines—the collective pursuit of truth.
Thank you again for your thoughtful piece, which invites us to reflect on the interplay between individuality and expertise in shaping public discourse. It is an important conversation, and I appreciate your contribution to it.
The comment last week was to write about things you know. You can have an opinion on anything, but if it's a topic you don't understand then it will always be a less interesting opinion than those things where you do. You cannot write about a complex, nuanced topic in such a way and expect people to read and appreciate it in the same way as a post with deep understanding.
But, talking about sports, when you build an audience in a specific way about a specific topic that audience always reacts when you use it for other purposes. People follow athletes because of their sports and they have right to share their opinions, but they need to expect that the audience they built was not there because of those opinions. That means you'll get the full range of responses, including from those that only care about sports.
The audience is not a passive vessel for receiving opinions, it's a group of people with opinions themselves. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. You have the right to say whatever you want, and the audience has the right to reject it.