Since when are current “sports” unappealing to rationalists? We’ve got plenty of Magic, poker, chess, and Go players here. Do you mean that we’re not so interested in spectator sports?
To me, “sports” means games of physical exertion. I don’t call Magic etc. sports. I also take the question to be about playing them, not watching them.
Mostly, I don’t like those kind of sports because I’m very bad at them (I tend to be worse than the typical beginner) and I’m unwilling to invest time and effort to improve.
Having a game that’s enjoyable to watch is probably important as well. Being watchable seems to be a huge draw and I know that games that want to become e-sports are deliberately made in a way that makes just watching the game enjoyable.
My wording was careless. It should probably have been something like: “If there are things that are unappealing to rationalists in current sports, what should they be?”
Since when are current “sports” unappealing to rationalists? We’ve got plenty of Magic, poker, chess, and Go players here. Do you mean that we’re not so interested in spectator sports?
To me, “sports” means games of physical exertion. I don’t call Magic etc. sports. I also take the question to be about playing them, not watching them.
Mostly, I don’t like those kind of sports because I’m very bad at them (I tend to be worse than the typical beginner) and I’m unwilling to invest time and effort to improve.
Having a game that’s enjoyable to watch is probably important as well. Being watchable seems to be a huge draw and I know that games that want to become e-sports are deliberately made in a way that makes just watching the game enjoyable.
None of those activities are sports. Most games are not sports.
My wording was careless. It should probably have been something like: “If there are things that are unappealing to rationalists in current sports, what should they be?”