Actually its the opposite bro.
My degree at UT is in Psychology and if you study "fan hood" not just in the US, but around the world, you notice that the "fanatics" (fans that cheer wildly for the laundry no matter what) typically have one common trait, that is they use their team as an emotional replacement.
You especially see this in Europe with soccer when not only opposing fans are assaulted but the referees as well if the home team loses. The "fanatics" that are diehard fans that paint their face and cheer and yell at the top of their lungs use sports as an emotional replacement. They live vicariously through the accomplishments of others, mainly the players on their favorite team. Studies have shown that when their team wins they actually have an increased level of endorphins released into their blood stream. Likewise, when their team loses, they take it as a personal defeat, and can become increasingly irritated and aggressive. Hence, the assaults on opposing players and referees I mentioned earlier. Fans that are not that emotionally involved in the game typically have other areas of their lives that they deem just as, if not more, important than the game, mainly their family, their career, ect...
So you see, you got it backwards. If you study the literature on the subject you would know that it is the die hard fans that are typically lacking in other areas of their lives and use sports as an avenue for emotional replacement. And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If you have a great family life, wife, kids, a great job, making decent money, do you really care that much if your favorite team wins or not? Are you going to go beat up the ref when your team loses? Obviously not.
So, here's what I take from that:
1) We're supposed to be impressed by an undergrad degree.
2) We're supposed to be impressed by an undergrad degree in Psych.
3) We're supposed to be impressed by an undergrad degree from a major university.
4) You presume it's likely that would be impressive because, surely, no one with a master's degree in the social sciences from a major university would post here... let alone, someone with a terminal degree.
And most relevantly:
5) That your description of diehard fans from whatever study it is you've cited... and I don't doubt you've stated the study basically with some level of accuracy... is
not congruent with "those who just use sports as an outlet to feel powerful and smarter than everyone else, ostensibly because they don't get to do that in any other part of their lives."
To the contrary, my friend, why else would one invest him/herself quite so intensively?
As a psych expert like yourself surely knows as s/he walks into this discussion, the psychological drive to feel powerful and superior intellectually, when unmet in other parts of his/her life, is naturally especially intensive then in other places... often personal relationships... and often, again, in one's connection to his/her sports team(s).
In other words, the diehard fan, just rationally, profiles most typically as a person who places greatest priority on showing him/herself smarter than the owner, GM, coach, players when they're losing, and complimenting him/herself on all his/her mind-melding with the team's principals when they're winning.
Others of us?
We're just in it for the entertainment value. It's just sports. In real life, there are other better ways to reassure oneself that s/he's superior/intelligent/valuable.
Pardon the observation but
it's more entertaining to win games and make the playoffs, keeping hope alive than it is to see someone lose his job.
Try to see it from our point of view.
