> From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Fabio wrote: > >... The participants also get to socialize with other > healthy people with > >disposable income and who share similar values. So both > sides benefit. > > OK, this suggests that health, income, and values are > complements as features > of people you socialize with. Why these as opposed to any > other set of three > positive features (such as humor, intelligence, residence, etc.)?
I don't think there is such a strong current-income correlation, and even less for similar values. I think a large number of runners, who so often run alone, occasionally in small groups, are happy to affirm their membership in the community of runners. If you took 10 000 runners, split out those that had run in at least 1 (2? 3?) charity race in the last year (2? 3?), and then compared incomes and similar values, I'd guess little difference between the two groups. If Fabio had merely stated "get to socialize with other runners", I'd agree totally. In fact, the inclusiveness of runners prolly extends to a general non-objection to virtually all charities. Other sponsorship might engender some runners towards self-exclusion (eg tobacco sponsors), where even unsupported unliked charities generally wouldn't. I also think that most organizers of running events barely cover the organizing costs through reg fees. But (very cheap me), I would usually run unregistered just to run--I didn't there was a big "free runner" problem. Tom Grey
