I read an article last night entitled "Moon Landing Faked!!! - Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories". The article talks about several recent studies that fly in the face of conventional understanding of conspiracy theorists being fringe members of society and show such people to be much more widespread throughout society. Reading through this study, I couldn't help but draw parallels to discussions regarding the Leafs, Carlyle, and hockey in general. For instance: (emphases used are mine)
The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions. In fact, Popper was describing a cognitive bias that psychologists now commonly refer to as the "fundamental attribution error": the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.
I find this very analogous to the ongoing debate of shot quality. Rather than simply attempt to cope with the idea that turning shots into goals is a very random occurrence, many fans believe such like: Carlylel's systems produces higher quality shots, Nazem Kadri is a world class shooter, Matt Frattin's Calder Cup goal scoring is legit. This is a pretty clear case of overestimating the actions of others.
a number of studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty and a general lack of agency and control, a likely purpose of this bias is to help people "make sense of the world" by providing simple explanations for complex societal events — restoring a sense of control and predictability.
Simply put, people need to believe they (or at least someone) is in charge of things; whether they are us hurling through space on a hunk or rock, or being at the mercy of the hockey gods when it comes to things like puck luck or pksv%.
the severe consequences and implications of climate change are often too distressing and overwhelming for people to deal with, both cognitively as well as emotionally. Resorting to easier explanations that simply discount global warming as a hoax is then of course much more comforting and convenient psychologically.
Replace "climate change" with "advanced stats" and you've got a perfect explanation for why many visitors to PPP seem to be so hostile or at least skeptical towards the use of stats, because the implications of them may paint a picture that they simply don't want to see; that they may be cheering for a deeply flawed hockey team.
Here there be links
Great article from The National Post
Preaching the good word.
Correct. I think....
Cam sweats out the booze and rethinks the game.
Leafs and Isles trounced and other stuff.