First of all, we can all see that there is no contact. Let's just shake hands and agree that Thorsten Stuckmann does not touch Wayne Rooney at any moment in the event. What's amazing is that anyone thinks there is anything to debate here at all.
So-Called Pundits Holding a So-Called Debate
Go to the clip, and listen carefully to what the "pundits" say : Lineker focuses on the "rash" challenge - which makes no contact with Wazza. Nev focuses on the same thing that Keown and Wilson focused on in commentary, that he "has to get out of the way", and goes on to say, remarkably, "If he left his leg there, that would've been a leg breaker"(for the record, we completely disagree with this assertion, unless it turns out Wazza's shins are made of biscuit), and that if he hadn't got out the way the keeper would've "snapped his leg" (which also would not have happened in the absence of shins crafted by McVitie's). Hodgson describes it as "just taking evasive action", Roy even describes the keeper as having "gone with both feet", which is actually an entirely fabricated detail consistent with his reading of the event, but absent in the true event.
Memory Errors
Our brains do not store precise images of events. Our brains store little faint snapshots, but what we actually think of as "recollection" is really "reconstruction" of our sense of what the event meant, and the actual details we do remember. It is not uncommon to distort a memory to include what seem like genuine details, which are in fact fabricated details which fit with the way the event was salient for us. For Roy, Wayne is an innocent party, so he fabricates a detail which supports this perspective.
A Quick Lesson in Objectivity
Ask yourself this - if Luis Suarez or Eden Hazard or Diego Costa does what Wazza did, is it viewed the same? No, of course not. Are there any relevant external factors which could justify this? The answer to this question is also 'no'.
Our Reading of the Event
So-Called Pundits Holding a So-Called Debate
Go to the clip, and listen carefully to what the "pundits" say : Lineker focuses on the "rash" challenge - which makes no contact with Wazza. Nev focuses on the same thing that Keown and Wilson focused on in commentary, that he "has to get out of the way", and goes on to say, remarkably, "If he left his leg there, that would've been a leg breaker"(for the record, we completely disagree with this assertion, unless it turns out Wazza's shins are made of biscuit), and that if he hadn't got out the way the keeper would've "snapped his leg" (which also would not have happened in the absence of shins crafted by McVitie's). Hodgson describes it as "just taking evasive action", Roy even describes the keeper as having "gone with both feet", which is actually an entirely fabricated detail consistent with his reading of the event, but absent in the true event.
Memory Errors
Our brains do not store precise images of events. Our brains store little faint snapshots, but what we actually think of as "recollection" is really "reconstruction" of our sense of what the event meant, and the actual details we do remember. It is not uncommon to distort a memory to include what seem like genuine details, which are in fact fabricated details which fit with the way the event was salient for us. For Roy, Wayne is an innocent party, so he fabricates a detail which supports this perspective.
A Quick Lesson in Objectivity
Ask yourself this - if Luis Suarez or Eden Hazard or Diego Costa does what Wazza did, is it viewed the same? No, of course not. Are there any relevant external factors which could justify this? The answer to this question is also 'no'.
Our Reading of the Event
Thorsten Stuckmann makes a sliding challenge. He makes no contact with Manchester United footballer Wayne Rooney. Wayne Rooney leaps forward into the air, and kicks his leg back. Wayne Rooney makes a deliberate attempt to simulate contact in the absence of actual contact.
"English players don't dive"
"English players don't dive"
You don't actually hear this phrase verbatim, but some hint to the underlying stereotype is very common. Like any stereotype, we will meet with occasional evidence which runs contrary to it. Take the Millerites, who gave up everything to follow William Miller's prediction for the end of the world, but did not let the simple, unfortunate fact of the world failing to actually end as evidence that their belief was wrong. This may not be a stereotype, but it shows the way we typically react to evidence that challenges our existing beliefs.
What Do We Do?
What Do We Do?
So, you are confronted with evidence - actual indisputable evidence - that an English footballer, Captain of the national team, Wayne Rooney no less (such an "English Footballer" that despite barely being in the game at all he can get on the BBC's three-man 'Man of the Match' shortlist), has done a definite dive. On the other hand, aren't all English players honest? It's now become salient for the parties recognised above to, rather than having to review the veracity of their beliefs, find a way to retain the image of Wayne Rooney as being a) a typical English player, and b) consequently honest.
Let's Just Take a Moment
He may have to get out of the way, although we're not actually conceding that point, we don't think anything would've happened if he'd kept running at the same pace (slow it down; the left leg goes past Stuckmann, the right leg goes over him). Anyway, we'll let you have that. Let's say he did have to get out of the way. What are his options? He can a) do it the way any normal person would, or b) he can simulate the effects of contact. Interesting that the "honest" footballer, chooses option b.
So, What Are We Saying?
Let's Just Take a Moment
He may have to get out of the way, although we're not actually conceding that point, we don't think anything would've happened if he'd kept running at the same pace (slow it down; the left leg goes past Stuckmann, the right leg goes over him). Anyway, we'll let you have that. Let's say he did have to get out of the way. What are his options? He can a) do it the way any normal person would, or b) he can simulate the effects of contact. Interesting that the "honest" footballer, chooses option b.
So, What Are We Saying?
If you've ever heard Wilson commentate, you'll know that he's of the conservative variety, and if you've ever heard Martin Keown talk, well, you'll know where we're going with this. Keown and Wilson, we're saying, share this popular stereotype "English players don't dive/are more honest" and are met with conflicting evidence. They have a choice. They can question the validity of the stereotype (an act which requires genuine mental effort and attention, some non-routine thinking), or they can interpret the evidence in a way which maintains the credibility of the stereotype (aka their present belief). If you've ever met people, you'll know the latter is a more popular route than the former, in fact one is almost ubiquitous, whereas the other is a rarity. To maintain your present beliefs, you must find ways of creatively interpreting disconfirming evidence, and when the belief is a stereotype, where disconfirming evidence will inevitably abound, we are especially adept.
Personal Involvement
Personal involvement (or degree of belief, to put it another way) is always an important factor. This is the degree to which the belief is central to peoples self-perceptions, or their view of the world. If your life is organised around the church, around the rituals and traditions of religious life, you're going to be more hostile to disconfirming evidence, than if the issue is how you make the best toast. In this case, it helps that the five people we've noted as supporting the "had to jump out of the way" delusion (I refuse to call it a theory) are all themselves English, and thus presumably include themselves as fitting the "English are more honest" stereotype.
So...
Personal Involvement
Personal involvement (or degree of belief, to put it another way) is always an important factor. This is the degree to which the belief is central to peoples self-perceptions, or their view of the world. If your life is organised around the church, around the rituals and traditions of religious life, you're going to be more hostile to disconfirming evidence, than if the issue is how you make the best toast. In this case, it helps that the five people we've noted as supporting the "had to jump out of the way" delusion (I refuse to call it a theory) are all themselves English, and thus presumably include themselves as fitting the "English are more honest" stereotype.
So...
We are protective of the image in our heads, of our beliefs and dreams, no matter how unequivocal the evidence in front of our eyes. We may even go as far as Roy Hodgson, and interpret the evidence in such a biased way that we actively sit around creating details that were not present (such as two footed tackles which are, no matter how many times you see the footage, a complete fabrication).
No comments:
Post a Comment