Why why why?
Why do Liverpool supporters insist that Manchester United didn't deserve the penalty that faithful day at White Hart Lane? Why are Barisan Nasional supporters so adamant that Najib will be the best Prime Minister? While Pakatan supporters think of Najib as nothing more than "Kisah Mongolia"
Perhaps the same phenomenon that explains why football fans fail to see a clear foul committed by their team explains why both Pakatan and Barisan supporters can't see the clear faults of their political leaders.
Perak is more than a case in point, in they're struggle for power, BN and Pakatan have completely paralyzed the state administration, both sides claiming moral (or legal) victory, with the state being the biggest loser. (unless you're bidding for a 2.4L Camry)
Who is the rightful 'MB' of Perak?
The choice is clear....to you. Depending on where your political leanings are, the choice comes almost like second nature. It's very easy to demonize Zambry (or Nizar) and equally easy to canonize Zambry (or Nizar).
For the life of me, I can't understand how seemingly intelligent people can believe Zambry has any case for being MB. In the same light, they can't understand how a seemingly intelligent person (like myself) can believe Nizar has the right to become MB without the majority in the house or the Sultans consent.
The explanation could be simple: Some people are not as intelligent as they think.
That statement is completely true, BUT does not explain this scenario. In fact it leads you off the right answer, as I found out.
This is not a question of intelligence. People who vote for Zambry are not stupid, just like people who vote for Nizar are not smart. The statement holds vice-versa as well.
This is a question of interpretation, not of the state law or of a moral stand. It is the interpretation of fact. Facts are (as I found out) not as indisputable as I thought.
What is a fact anyway?
A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied (source: wikipedia)
For every bit of information we receive we quickly analyze it to determine if it's fact or fiction. If we cannot determine it offhand, we park it in a category called 'theory'. We set a benchmark of required proof for when 'theory' gets promoted to 'fact'.
This is what I call the 'fact-benchmark'. The fact-benchmark defines how much evidence you need before you actually believe something to be fact.
Unfortunately the 'fact-benchmark' changes psychologically. Meaning, the benchmark goes lower for 'facts' like "You have a high IQ" or "You're a better than average driver" while that same benchmark becomes more stringent for theories like "You can't double park" or "Your children have below average IQs" .
Most people don't realize we constantly shift this benchmark of proof every time we encounter a new piece of information. We more quickly adapt 'facts' that suit us, and dismiss 'theories' that don't, and it occurs so naturally, we hardly notice it at all. In our eyes, our judgments are always fair.
"In one study, volunteers were asked to evaluate 2 pieces of scientific research on the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. They were shown one research study that used the 'between states technique' (which involved comparing the crime rates of states that had a capital punishment with the crime rates of states that did not) and one research study that used the 'within states technique' (which involved comparing the crime rate of a single state before and after it instituted or outlawed capital punishment).... The results showed that volunteers favored whichever technique produced the conclusion that verified their PERSONAL political ideologies.
When within states produced an unfavorable result, volunteers immediately recognized that within-states comparisons are worthless because factors such as employment and income vary over time.
When between-states produced an unfavorable result, volunteers immediately recognized factors such as income and employment vary between state." Daniel Gilbert, "Stumbling on Happiness".
The study clearly shows that we shift the 'fact-benchmark' according to our liking. In fact, benchmark shifting explains many things like how Chelsea fans believe they should have had 4 penalties, while Barcelona fans believe Chelsea are just sore losers. If we didn't shift benchmarks, we'd have just too much information to digest and analyze. By removing the need to analyze, we reduce the amount of time it takes to process the huge amounts of information our brains receive everyday. Making it manageable.
This of course leads people to unfairly judge even in the presence of clear proof. Every single penalty decision in any football game is always debated. The subjectivity of a decision, coupled with the football leanings of fans and players, make them inherently more bias towards themselves because they lower the benchmark of proof on themselves and increase the benchmark of proof for their opponents. Fact-benchmarks clearly favor our team, and turn the opposition into demons. Of course this also explains why both sides always think the referee needs a pair of glasses.
Therefore, when studies and newspaper articles or blogs come out criticizing Nizar or Zambry, our brain goes into examining these so called 'facts'. We throw out what we don't like and we keep what we like. Any blog is highly unlikely to change our perception of Pakatan or BN, the more entrenched we are in supporting one of them, the harder it is to be neutral again.
Regardless of facts, Pakatan supporters immediately believe that Hee was paid a large sum of money to change party even though there is no fact to support it. No cheque, no receipt and no invoice.
Regardless of evidence to the contrary, BN supporters believe Hee lost 'faith' in Pakatan. When Pakatan policies have not changed since she was elected, she was deputy speaker and clearly Pakatan were wooing more and more perakians into their fold.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. " - Stuart Chase
That's why, because the political divide cuts so deep, we see more and more people becoming entrenched in their belief that they are no longer 'neutral' or 'open'. Their facts differ from your facts, their peception has clouded their judgements and we see both sides having their die-hards, people who continue to believe because their 'fact-benchmark' have shifted so heavily in favor of their political parties it becomes nearly impossible to change their belief regardless of how many 'facts' you have.
So, just like I believe Manchester United played the best football this year, deserved a penalty in the FA CUP semi-final and Liverpool were lucky to beat us 4-1. Liverpool fans believe that Liverpool played the best football this year, were unlucky with referees, and thoroughly showed United the biggest beating of the year.
I've supported Man U my entire life, so has my dad. To me, they will always be the greatest team in the world. Let's hope my 'fact-benchmark' for political parties are a bit less loyal.
That's my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place.
Why do Liverpool supporters insist that Manchester United didn't deserve the penalty that faithful day at White Hart Lane? Why are Barisan Nasional supporters so adamant that Najib will be the best Prime Minister? While Pakatan supporters think of Najib as nothing more than "Kisah Mongolia"
Perhaps the same phenomenon that explains why football fans fail to see a clear foul committed by their team explains why both Pakatan and Barisan supporters can't see the clear faults of their political leaders.
Perak is more than a case in point, in they're struggle for power, BN and Pakatan have completely paralyzed the state administration, both sides claiming moral (or legal) victory, with the state being the biggest loser. (unless you're bidding for a 2.4L Camry)
Who is the rightful 'MB' of Perak?
The choice is clear....to you. Depending on where your political leanings are, the choice comes almost like second nature. It's very easy to demonize Zambry (or Nizar) and equally easy to canonize Zambry (or Nizar).
For the life of me, I can't understand how seemingly intelligent people can believe Zambry has any case for being MB. In the same light, they can't understand how a seemingly intelligent person (like myself) can believe Nizar has the right to become MB without the majority in the house or the Sultans consent.
The explanation could be simple: Some people are not as intelligent as they think.
That statement is completely true, BUT does not explain this scenario. In fact it leads you off the right answer, as I found out.
This is not a question of intelligence. People who vote for Zambry are not stupid, just like people who vote for Nizar are not smart. The statement holds vice-versa as well.
This is a question of interpretation, not of the state law or of a moral stand. It is the interpretation of fact. Facts are (as I found out) not as indisputable as I thought.
What is a fact anyway?
A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied (source: wikipedia)
For every bit of information we receive we quickly analyze it to determine if it's fact or fiction. If we cannot determine it offhand, we park it in a category called 'theory'. We set a benchmark of required proof for when 'theory' gets promoted to 'fact'.
This is what I call the 'fact-benchmark'. The fact-benchmark defines how much evidence you need before you actually believe something to be fact.
Unfortunately the 'fact-benchmark' changes psychologically. Meaning, the benchmark goes lower for 'facts' like "You have a high IQ" or "You're a better than average driver" while that same benchmark becomes more stringent for theories like "You can't double park" or "Your children have below average IQs" .
Most people don't realize we constantly shift this benchmark of proof every time we encounter a new piece of information. We more quickly adapt 'facts' that suit us, and dismiss 'theories' that don't, and it occurs so naturally, we hardly notice it at all. In our eyes, our judgments are always fair.
"In one study, volunteers were asked to evaluate 2 pieces of scientific research on the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. They were shown one research study that used the 'between states technique' (which involved comparing the crime rates of states that had a capital punishment with the crime rates of states that did not) and one research study that used the 'within states technique' (which involved comparing the crime rate of a single state before and after it instituted or outlawed capital punishment).... The results showed that volunteers favored whichever technique produced the conclusion that verified their PERSONAL political ideologies.
When within states produced an unfavorable result, volunteers immediately recognized that within-states comparisons are worthless because factors such as employment and income vary over time.
When between-states produced an unfavorable result, volunteers immediately recognized factors such as income and employment vary between state." Daniel Gilbert, "Stumbling on Happiness".
The study clearly shows that we shift the 'fact-benchmark' according to our liking. In fact, benchmark shifting explains many things like how Chelsea fans believe they should have had 4 penalties, while Barcelona fans believe Chelsea are just sore losers. If we didn't shift benchmarks, we'd have just too much information to digest and analyze. By removing the need to analyze, we reduce the amount of time it takes to process the huge amounts of information our brains receive everyday. Making it manageable.
This of course leads people to unfairly judge even in the presence of clear proof. Every single penalty decision in any football game is always debated. The subjectivity of a decision, coupled with the football leanings of fans and players, make them inherently more bias towards themselves because they lower the benchmark of proof on themselves and increase the benchmark of proof for their opponents. Fact-benchmarks clearly favor our team, and turn the opposition into demons. Of course this also explains why both sides always think the referee needs a pair of glasses.Therefore, when studies and newspaper articles or blogs come out criticizing Nizar or Zambry, our brain goes into examining these so called 'facts'. We throw out what we don't like and we keep what we like. Any blog is highly unlikely to change our perception of Pakatan or BN, the more entrenched we are in supporting one of them, the harder it is to be neutral again.
Regardless of facts, Pakatan supporters immediately believe that Hee was paid a large sum of money to change party even though there is no fact to support it. No cheque, no receipt and no invoice.
Regardless of evidence to the contrary, BN supporters believe Hee lost 'faith' in Pakatan. When Pakatan policies have not changed since she was elected, she was deputy speaker and clearly Pakatan were wooing more and more perakians into their fold.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. " - Stuart Chase
That's why, because the political divide cuts so deep, we see more and more people becoming entrenched in their belief that they are no longer 'neutral' or 'open'. Their facts differ from your facts, their peception has clouded their judgements and we see both sides having their die-hards, people who continue to believe because their 'fact-benchmark' have shifted so heavily in favor of their political parties it becomes nearly impossible to change their belief regardless of how many 'facts' you have.
So, just like I believe Manchester United played the best football this year, deserved a penalty in the FA CUP semi-final and Liverpool were lucky to beat us 4-1. Liverpool fans believe that Liverpool played the best football this year, were unlucky with referees, and thoroughly showed United the biggest beating of the year.
I've supported Man U my entire life, so has my dad. To me, they will always be the greatest team in the world. Let's hope my 'fact-benchmark' for political parties are a bit less loyal.
That's my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place.
Email this article to someone
0 comments: