See no evil: each to his own point of view

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence. If not corrected, this can lead to further bad choices for the sake of consistency, rather than learning from mistakes — www.wikipedia.com

Roughly deconstructed, cognitive dissonance is what happens when you come upon evidence that is contrary to what you hold true and infallible in your subconscious. Thus the choice is made to accept this new evidence and let go of a firmly held (even defining) belief or to reject it on grounds that can range from the pseudo-logical to the outright absurd. Being a sports fan is to live this on an ongoing basis.

Think of the last time your team was involved in a contentious refereeing decision that was crucial to the outcome of a match. International man of refereeing mystery Matt Goddard will not be accepted as an example as he IS k*k (this may be in the outright absurd category). Your player goes in for a tackle, Player X from the opposing team falls over and you leap from your chair as if prodded and veins bulging like an All-Black midst Haka you scream “DIVE!” at the screen with all your might, the ref awards the free kick, TV replays from sixteen different angles show that there was indeed contact and then it starts. Do you accept that it was a foul and enjoy the rest of the match or do you rationalise why the foul should not have been given?

I’d wager 95% of us go for the old “he was always going for the ball and that twat fell over at the first chance!”, then having assuaged ourselves that we were indeed correct in believing it wasn’t a foul, we go further by debating why “they should introduce video referrals to clarify such situations and how referees fitness levels are not what they should be and that is why they are never well placed to see such etc.” This is what forms the basis of 90% of the talk about sports. Opinions. Subjective views based mostly on one’s pre-conceived ideas of events. It is why there are 6 million different Bok team combos that should take the field every weekend. Some north of the Jukskei wouldn’t even have John Smit in them.

A pertinent current example is the brouhaha over the recent Springbok (non)performances. Are the Bokke failing because a) We have an incompetent political appointee in the job trying to impose a style of play that is not suited to SA?(let us ignore for a while the fact that most progressive rugby thinkers are unanimous that a rigid approach is not the way to go under the ELV’s, or b) Our players (they who have spilled more possession through handling errors, losing turnovers, conceding penalties and taking the wrong option than their opponents) are not up to it, for a variety of reasons including form, motivation, combinations not gelling, skills gaps or mindset deficiencies. Your mind is already made up but I ask you to go through your thinking and re-evaluate your initial stance against the facts. Get my point?

Or any other time you see fans of bitter rival teams, (Pirates and Chiefs spring to mind) each trying to convince the other of why his point of view is more valid with all the vigour of a revivalist preacher making the most of the first Sunday after payday. Both know that they will never yield to the other’s point of view and both are aware of this yet it never does anything to quell the flames of ‘debate’. I know I am more guilty of this than most people I know. If OJ Simpson had been running from the cops while clad in a Kaizer Chiefs’ jersey I would have engineered a place on that jury and made sure he hung like a runaway slave off a Californian Redwood.

It is that illogical refusal to see things for what they are and ignoring/diminishing those facts we don’t agree with that makes sport fandom such a dramatic pursuit. Why else would we watch Boots and All were it not for the chance to (dis)agree with an ‘expert’ and get the vindication when they are proven wrong?

What happens on the field is not subjective. A ball is either grounded or it is not. A foul is either committed or it is not. It’s the subjective views of the people involved and those watching that turn all that into the great weekly drama of sports commentary. When Jacques Rogge sees unsporting behaviour where the rest of us see exuberant youthful genius the world gets into a tizz.

Indeed without it life would be pretty boring. Imagine being at your local and everyone is supporting the same side and of the same view on the unfolding action? Pretty dull huh? Imagine watching Boots and All or Soccerzone and Naas/Sporo aren’t frothing at the mouth and drawing architectural schematics all over the screen to make a point only they could ever understand. And instead everyone is sitting there nodding in agreement at every question poised by the anchor like some intellectual zombies in a cult. Would you really want that?

All our pretensions at logic and facts and statistical prowess at the end of the day, we intuitively seek to prove right that which we hold firm in our subconscious. There’s an explanation for that, its called being human.