Why are people encouraged (in general) to pursue arguably worthless goals?

Consider the Olympics, for example.

It is, without doubt, generally considered to be a high and worthy achievement to win a gold medal (or any medal, actually) in the Olympic Games.

But is there any particular reason why this should be so?

To win a gold medal at the Olympic Games, you need to be the best (out of all those people who also desire to participate) at some task. The task may be rowing, diving, jumping, running; any one of a number of activities which people have decided to compete in. To win, all you need to do is be the best. It is generally extremely difficult for someone to be the best at one of these activities, and it is considered (*because* it is extremely difficult to achieve) very prestigious to be the best.

But are there not many things in the world which are difficult, but worthless?

Why is it considered prestigious, for example, to be the best diver in the world? It is very hard to be considered the best, but is it actually a valuable thing to be the best at?

Why is being the best at diving, for example, considered to be a very prestigious achievement, but being the best at, say, ultimate frisbee, is not cared about at all by the general public?

Why is it considered important to be the best at things which are only games, and which contribute nothing of substantive value to the world?

Why have difficult things and prestigious things come to be basically synonymous, when in fact the difficulty of a given task and the value created by it may be completely unrelated?

Should we not be concerned more with value than with difficulty?

>science
none found in this post

>math
none found in this post

Value is totally subjective. Even goals we generally see as undeniably valuable like curing disease has no inherent worth. I could argue what value people see in such things, but I can't argue why they're valuable.

Also not Veeky Forums.

I'm asking a question about social value systems; which surely requires an answer from a student of the social sciences.

>social sciences
>Science
fuck off

...

You should've talked about the Olympiads user, that's competitive as fuck at the international level.

>surely requires an answer from a student of the social sciences
hahahaha what a silly appeal to 'authority'

I'm really interested in your question, because i've been thinking about it myself, but you should ask this in Veeky Forums.

Consider this: People don't value the same things as you do and "what the world values" is simply the sum of every individuals values. Clearly the world (or atleast a large subset) values the Olympics
But also
Pros of the Olympics:
Friendly competition between countries strengthens bonds
Happiness for the athletes and the people close to them
Entertainment
People pushing the limits of what the human body is capable of
A sense of unity in nations and the world as a whole

To be frank OP it seems like you didn't even try to understand your fellow human beings

>oh no I didn't win the IMO
>I'm still in the 99th percentile when it comes to math and problem solving and I'm only 18, what am I going to do with my life?

Assuming that all of those things are true (which is debatable): is it a good thing for people to spend 10 or 20 years training to throw a javelin really far for five minutes of glory in the (statistically unlikely) event they win an Olympic medal; or a lifetime of disappointment in the (much more likely) event that they lose, or fail to even qualify for the Olympics?

>Should we not be concerned more with value than with difficulty?

Has it really not occurred to you in all of this writing and (probably) thinking about it, that difficulty is what is valued and is thus one of the values of the Olympics?

>is it a good thing

Define what you mean by 'good' in that context.

And even more importantly, does it even make sense for people to derive happiness from these things?

You jumped really far or ran really fast - so what? What difference does it make? How is that a worthwhile thing to spend your life doing? Why should you derive happiness from something so useless? Why should anyone find something so useless to be entertaining?

It makes no sense whatsoever that something so trivial and fundamentally useless should make someone happy or give someone pleasure.

I thought I explicitly stated that in the post, didn't I?

I'm saying that difficulty *is* valued, but it shouldn't be; that something can be difficult but trivial.

Is it going to materially contribute to lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole - and should it?

Not every human has a strictly utilitarian outlook.

>does it even make sense for people to derive happiness from these things?

Why wouldnt it?

>You jumped really far or ran really fast - so what? What difference does it make?

All the difference in his world.

>How is that a worthwhile thing to spend your life doing?

What do you specifically mean by 'worthwhile'?

>Why should you derive happiness from something so useless?

Why shouldnt he?

>Why should anyone find something so useless to be entertaining?

Why is it 'useless'?
And what do you mean by 'useless'?

>I'm saying that difficulty *is* valued, but it shouldn't be

Why shouldnt it?

>that something can be difficult but trivial.

What makes it trivial?
And even if it is trivial to you, why shouldnt it not be trivial so someone else?

I get that people are hypocrites in the way they dismiss other lifestyles for having worthless results but you're really just preaching to the choir here. I suppose people just need a whipping boy for their own miserable lives full of false promises and meaningless ambition.

tl;dr

>Why don't people appreciate me for being good at math?

Ever heard of a fields medal / nobel prize?

Difficulty usually (SHOULD) correlate(s) with time, the most appropriate measurement of work. Value is applied to persistence (time) in any field of work that leads to being the best (least shit) in a desired field.

Take Perelman for example. He sacrificed at least 7 years of his life to pursue an activity - 7 years of work. He is not praised for doing what others cannot do. He is praised for doing what others were not willing to do, which is put in the work.

I exemplify Perelman as the fruits of his labour do not yet have an inherent tangible value, similar to the outcome of the best Olympic athletes. The reward for these people is pride, whether they like to show it or not.

I'm sure Perelman feels no guilt in dropping out of mathematics and society after completing what he set out to accomplish, merely because only he knows the extent to which personal sacrifices were made.

Also, genetics and environment, but let's not go there.

So, in an analogy to academics who research something remotely practically applicable or not practically applicable at all to the real world, should we also consider their actions as useless too? Should we only pursue engineering or scientific research that can only yield observable benefits to society? Popular entertainment or personal satisfaction count for nothing nowadays?

Enough people are involved with sports for that answer to be "yes".

Look. Fucking normies like sports. They like bullshitting rivalries, as a member of an arbitrary war party against another war party, over the most inconsequential shit. Because they like being together as a group more than they like being alone.

Not to mention that people like to see other people perform shit that requires genetics and a shitload of training to do. People act and justify later. Deal with it.

Humans cannot survive off work alone. If we did nothing but pursue noble goals and work, work, work, we would go crazy and die.

Entertainment is as vital for societal function as shelter and food. Only a tool thinks otherwise.

>It is, without doubt, generally considered to be a high and worthy achievement to win a gold medal (or any medal, actually) in the Olympic Games.
By whom? I mean it's to an extent impressive, but I wouldn't call it high or worthy.

He haven`t dropped the math, he have just dropped the math community.

Your fucking autistic and retarded

To do what has not been done is an essential drive for humans, and it is what has spread us across oceans and beneath the sea and into space

To jump further than anyone has or run faster or whatever is just an expression of that vital aspect of our nature and it is good and right that it be promoted and celebrated

>What was that you said about my like's goals and accomplishments being a worthless waste of time user?

Only certain Olympic events are worth dedicating your life to.

100 meter dash, for instance. To break the human land speed record is a worthwhile goal.

people make money off of them. bread and circuses like the olympics are very lucrative for investors. lets not kid ourselves all of society doesn't benefit from these things either. but it's framed under the notion of greater good when really it's just good for the sponsors.

All goals are arguably worthless.

>does it even make sense for people to derive happiness from these things
>It makes no sense whatsoever that something so trivial and fundamentally useless should make someone happy or give someone pleasure.

So what conditions do things have to fit before they are acceptable to enjoy?
These things are trivial to you, useless to you.

i could pull an evo-psych story out of my ass to explain why people like watching sports or why they enjoy competing. I am not an evolutionary psychologist so I won't. But I am confident that there is a good explanation even if I don't know what it is.

>generally

I'm a scientist. The Olympics entertain me and made me excited and happy.

What else do you need?

Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Nothing has inherrent meaning. Some things have meaning placed upon them by a large number of people and others place value in being the best at this thing others have placed value in. Why are you autistic.

I'm starting to suspect that OP actually is autistic. Or willfully ignorant of how people work in order to act superior to them. Probably both.

>Should we not be concerned more with value than with difficulty?
no. why would you want to live your life maximizing value? the thrill of the challenge, and of perfecting a highly technical craft is a great way of living. we live in a time and place (e.g., people with internet and enough free time to shit post on Veeky Forums) where we have much more than we need, and we're free to dedicate ourselves to things that really fill us.

You can break down literally anything to the point where you see it as a worthless pursuit. The people involved with the olympics see a lot of value in it because it is what they love.

\thread

>skydaddy

You need to research fame and entertainment values. Movie and Sports stars are simple examples.

They are famous, as defined by an overly disproportional ratio of followers to personal reciprocating connections. Thus if a value of any kind is made, say entertainment. Then the disproportional cumulation can makes them rich and or powerful.

It is a dual condition that often only found in larger populations sizes, as the cost of such a role is huge. This staggering cost is hard to justify in most common models, yet the common formation of it in large systems suggests there is a value despite the poor understanding.

You likely want to talk to a social economist on this matter as I only know the basic science behind this, some one deeper in this field could give a better answer.
Hope that helps.

socrates pls

athletes pushing themselves to achieve peak performance gives scientists data that they can use to determine optimal kinematics, biomechanics etc that can be used in applications such as physiotherapy.

loser op

what are you referring to? if its yourself and you're being honest, you could probably still do great in 18+ math competitions