~ We do kinesiology without apology ~
Hobbies are supposed to be a fun activity in which your skill with it generally increases, no?
You’re calling it a hobby. That’s not what the image says. They’re behaviors. Like walking. You wouldn’t expect someone to think walking is a “fun activity in which your skill with it generally increases”. It’s just a fact of existing.
The image doesn’t mention walking. Singing, dancing, and art. I consider those to be hobbies, don’t you? I define hobbies as fun unnecessary activity, or in this case - behavior.
If 99.9% of people on the planet do it, it’s not a hobby. It’s a behavior.
Yeah, I suppose I’ve used the word beyond its scope. Let’s take dancing for example. People go to social events, like clubs, to socialize, dance, and hookup with people. That’s definitely beyond the word hobby. However, let’s say you want to learn to dance and decide to go to a dance school and take classes. I would consider that a hobby. Now, in context to the OP, activities conjoined with skill implies, at least to me, that maybe they’re talking about the latter kind of behavior. I dunno, but your view is perfectly valid.
I agree that they can be a hobby. Like you might speed walk in races or something. But that’s the exception. I believe what OP is trying to say is that some things have been transformed from being human into a skill that people are expected to be good at to participate in. If you’re not good at singing, people don’t want to hear it. If you’re not good at dancing, people don’t want to see it. Etc.
My behavior, now and a as child was to open things for curiosity. My hobby now is to thinker with dismantled electronic. Is this a hobby or a behavior?
I don’t think such stricts definitions really apply to humans.
You wouldn’t expect someone to think walking is a “fun activity in which your skill with it generally increases”.
I do. Why? Cause there are people who don’t know how to walk. Or have any spatial awareness.
But 99.9% of people on the planet do know how to walk. If people don’t have special awareness, then doing more walking isn’t gonna help that.
But bees are good at making hives :(
And birds are good at singing and those who make bad hives or are bad at singing don’t get to live or reproduce 🤔
I appreciate the sentiment, too many people put too much pressure on themselves to only do that sort of stuff if they’re trying to get better at ot.
But birds and bees absolutely don’t do either of those things just for the hell of it.
This is ladyB screeching about the fantasy hell scape she’s made up in her mind. I honestly can’t recall a single person irl thinking like this. It’s certainly not common.
The digital equivalent to your partner being pissed off at a dream they had about you
Nobody is giving you a report card on dancing.
My mom: “Why did you have to quit dance lessons as a child? Didn’t you know you were supposed to become a famous dancer pianist doctor who also sings and sells paintings on the side!?!? How could you do this to meeeeeeee???”
What? I don’t know when any of these were not perceived as skills. I’m not saying this to be elitist either; I’m fucking embarrassing at all three.
This post has a solid, positive message of “we should be wary of being too rigid in our assessments of human creativity” and “just let yourself have fun”, but it comes from a really weird assumption that humans haven’t been judging humans for these things for literally ever.
When did the “so now” part start, exactly? And how are we arbitrarily delineating “skills” and “behaviors”? Distance running is a quintessential human behavior, but it’s also a skill.
I think maybe they were thinking pre-modern history? But even now, people do dance and sing around campfires, and ‘arts and crafts’ exist which is a pretty low judgement activity.
Do they sing and dance for fun? I mean, even for other animals dancing and singing is part of their mating rituals, so being better than others is beneficial. IMO, this predates not only modern history, but homo sapiens in general.
I even tried to consider pre-history, and it’s always some level of unfounded or even contradictory. I won’t mince words: the post seems to just be making shit up based on some idealized version of the (naïvely homogenized) past, and I seriously doubt its author could produce any relevant, credible sources they’ve read that support this very niche talking point.
The other way around also has a false assumption in it. OK, maybe bees don’t have the concept if skill so much, but birds most certainly do judge singing/dancing skill (when selecting mates).
Yeah, wait, I completely overlooked that because I got so distracted by the human thing. Bird songs are among the most “the only reason this is done is so that it can be judged” things in nature, and it’s one of two things listed. The other one is something the bee needs to be good at and only exists for pragmatism. I cannot with this post.
Yeah op’s take is really weird. Not only it is impossible not to get better at something you do over and over, for a lot of people the enjoyment of a hobby comes from getting better as a form of personal growth, not as a ‘grindset mindset’.
Tinfoil hat take: There has been a few of these low-qualty text posts recently. They are now testing ai generated text-content like this, since Lemmy has so few people that bots end up chatting nonsense to each other way too often otherwise. Like this, they can test how passing their bots generated written content is. 🛸
