Understanding the negativity, staying confident it's not rational

[TimWatt]

So, we're mid-table, in a run of poor form. But there was plenty of 'expectation management' here when we were top of the league, suggesting the then good form, and luck, wouldn't last, but still - when defeats came they hurt none the less.

Hurt.

Because we care.

We love our team, and surely that runs deeper than scoring one goal more than opponents. Deeper than the outcome on any Tuesday or Saturday, but also in the 'how' and 'why' as much as the 'what'.

But it hurts nonetheless.


The trouble is, and this is a fault in human psychology, this hurt outweighs the joy of a win.

This is known as 'loss aversion' which affects judgement. So for instance the defeat against WHU sticks in the memory as 'something bad' longer than a game where we may have won playing less well. What should matter, excepting the joy of how the team plays, is the total points at the end of the season, not part way through or any one or two games. {OK double loss aversion when it's CP but that just emphasises my point about irrationality!}

Yesterday, I read a review in this subject I found interesting: [Can't post links but search newyorker and 'is-self-knowledge-overrated']

Here's an extract:

"Why are doctors so inconsistent? Kahneman and his longtime collaborator, Amos Tversky, explained these contradictory responses in terms of loss aversion, or the fact that losses hurt more than gains feel good. In fact, people hate losses so much that merely framing a choice in terms of a potential loss can shift their preferences. Like those physicians, people are suddenly willing to risk losing everything if there’s a chance they might lose nothing.
Although our dislike of losses might seem obvious—“You need to have studied economics for many years before you’d be surprised by my research; it didn’t shock my mother at all,” Kahneman says—the discovery of loss aversion proved to be an important refutation of human rationality. Unlike homo economicus, that imaginary species featured in macroeconomics textbooks, Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that real people don’t deal with uncertainty by carefully evaluating all of the relevant information. They stink at statistics and rarely maximize utility. Instead, their choices depend on a long list of mental short cuts and intemperate emotions, which often lead them to pick the wrong options.
Since the Israeli psychologists began studying loss aversion in the early nineteen-seventies, it has been used to explain a stunning variety of irrational behaviors, from the misguided decisions of investors—they refuse to sell losing stocks—to the stickiness of condo prices in the aftermath of a housing bubble. It’s been used to justify our fondness for the status quo—the present may stink, but we still don’t want to lose it—and the cowardice of N.F.L. coaches, who are far too afraid to go for it on fourth down. Loss aversion even excuses our social habits: studies have shown that it generally takes at least five kind comments to compensate for a single criticism. (The ratios are even worse for criminals: a person convicted of murder must perform at least twenty-five acts of “life-saving heroism” before he is forgiven.) This is an impressive amount of explanatory firepower for a theory rooted in hypotheticals."

Maybe remaining optimistic for the long term, assuming we have management of good quality, is a better strategy than focusing on any one particular loss.

Remember, with three points for a win, there is a built-in bias in this league for offensive play; you get 50% more points in two games by winning one and loosing one, compared to two 'honorable' draws.

Added to which, while not totally endorsing Game Theory for how to manage football, it is a principle of this field of psychology /maths that all thing being equal it's always better in terms of likelihood of a winning outcome to play a dominating strategy (eg 70% possession) compared to a dominated strategy.

Given the propensities of our team's financial backer then, I agree it makes sense (at this stage) for our team to focus not on avoiding defeat but on gradual progression in all round quality, and to play a dominating strategy.

Plus the magic ingredient that may need to be strengthened - belief!

 

[Daffy Duck]

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So, we're mid-table, in a run of poor form. But there was plenty of 'expectation management' here when we were top of the league, suggesting the then good form, and luck, wouldn't last, but still - when defeats came they hurt none the less.

Hurt.

Because we care.

We love our team, and surely that runs deeper than scoring one goal more than opponents. Deeper than the outcome on any Tuesday or Saturday, but also in the 'how' and 'why' as much as the 'what'.

But it hurts nonetheless.


The trouble is, and this is a fault in human psychology, this hurt outweighs the joy of a win.

This is known as 'loss aversion' which affects judgement. So for instance the defeat against WHU sticks in the memory as 'something bad' longer than a game where we may have won playing less well. What should matter, excepting the joy of how the team plays, is the total points at the end of the season, not part way through or any one or two games. {OK double loss aversion when it's CP but that just emphasises my point about irrationality!}

Yesterday, I read a review in this subject I found interesting: [Can't post links but search newyorker and 'is-self-knowledge-overrated']

Here's an extract:



Maybe remaining optimistic for the long term, assuming we have management of good quality, is a better strategy than focusing on any one particular loss.

Remember, with three points for a win, there is a built-in bias in this league for offensive play; you get 50% more points in two games by winning one and loosing one, compared to two 'honorable' draws.

Added to which, while not totally endorsing Game Theory for how to manage football, it is a principle of this field of psychology /maths that all thing being equal it's always better in terms of likelihood of a winning outcome to play a dominating strategy (eg 70% possession) compared to a dominated strategy.

Given the propensities of our team's financial backer then, I agree it makes sense (at this stage) for our team to focus not on avoiding defeat but on gradual progression in all round quality, and to play a dominating strategy.

Plus the magic ingredient that may need to be strengthened - belief!

So you don't think we'll run out of Balti Pies at the Barnsley match then?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Dog Poo.