Nate Silver on Sports and Politics

Our brains aren’t really built for rationality, they are built for rationalization

Stealing this!

Ed writes:

The fact is that thinking critically, being consistent in applying the same standard of reasoning to all arguments whether we agree with the conclusions or not, takes real effort.

I think it’s helpful to study how our brains work, in particular how we process information and why we process information the way we do. It helps make one more conscious on when they’re vulnerable to not thinking critically and if a person has integrity – override that tendency, and easier to observe when others aren’t thinking critically. It’s really amazing how blatantly obvious non-critical thinking is, along with how obvious the reaction is when the non-critical thinker delivers their triumphantly-asserted fallacy, either in the written word on the Internet (“carbonphobes”), or the expressions on people’s faces, when they’ve received their jolt of dopamine after successfully avoiding having to deal with an idea or an opponent, e.g., in response to a foreign policy position by George Soros, the reaction was, “But he’s an atheist!”, with a blissful smile following.

If you were touting how awesome Notre Dame was, for example*, you got very much slapped back into reality last night. In politics, you can go on being delusional for years at a time.

Actually, the humiliation of Notre Dame generated an excuse for sports writers to bad mouth the BCS, a favorite pastime of theirs. Of course, it’s not clear that any of the other teams in the BCS stable would have done any better against Alabama.

I disagree with Nate’s answer, by his own record. Sports are much less predictable than politics, the night before an election, Nate has the answers with a high degree of confidence, an hour before a football match, its known to a low degree of confidence. Big upsets in sports games happen with regularity.

Visit any sports message board and you will see these cognitive shortcuts in action. If a player or coach from one team is accused of doing something wrong, the fans of that team will demand nothing less than absolute proof before they’ll believe it; if a player or coach from their rival is accused of the same thing, the accusation itself is all the proof necessary to show their total corruption.

It’s true that a lot of people do this, but definitely not me. For example, the South Carolina Gamecocks are absolute shits, objectively speaking, and are irredeemable cheaters, thieves, and liars. I do not arrive at this conclusion by anything other than passionless analysis of the facts, and of course the minor issue that they beat Clemson 4 years in a row, which cannot be explained by anything other than cheating.

If a referee’s call goes against their team, it is almost always seen as a terrible injustice; switch the uniforms and the outcome and you’ll change their reaction to it as well.

Again, this is a flaw inherent in many people other than me. It is very clear that the refs were awful during last week’s playoff game in Denver, not that the Broncos didn’t do everything in their power to beat themselves, but the refs totally blew that game. I’m sure all Ravens fans agree. And if they don’t they are clearly biased.

@Uno #7:

Nate wasn’t saying which was easier to analyse, he was saying which was more frustrating to analyse. Big difference.

I often use the term “sports fan politics” to describe the inconsistency and tribalism that goes on in both fields.

It’s wrong to treat politics like sports, and equally wrong to treat sports like politics.

The former because it matters too much, and the latter too little.

Gretchen writes:

It’s wrong to treat politics like sports, and equally wrong to treat sports like politics.

The former because it matters too much, and the latter too little.

[Emphasis mine – MH]

I agree with your premise which I italicize above, but not your conclusion when it comes to adults. I disagree with your conclusion because I think sports provides a bountiful reservoir of analogies to illustrate a point made about politics.