When fighting cognitive biases, vigilance is a constant necessity. They are deeply ingrained because they have, on an evolutionary scale, had survival benefits. In this case, it's the attribution bias, which is when we tend to attribute the behavior or actions of others to internal characteristics, such as personality traits or abilities, while underestimating the influence of external factors or situational context. For ourselves, we do the opposite. I won't go into how this might have benefitted individuals in earlier, more primitive and violent times, but in situations such as this, especially when combined with the negativity bias -- well, taking a generous approach to thinking about others is often an effort.
And, no, I'm not perfect, and I sometimes don't even try that hard. I don't like Geno, and I'm not putting in a lot of time and effort to counter my beliefs. However, if I ever met him in person, or for some weird reason had cause to interact with him, I hope I'd set that pre-conceived emotion aside and look more broadly and more generously at the man. And I wouldn't be surprised that he's not the caricature I have of him in my mind. But, even with that, I try not to use that caricature to explain his actions.
As for the specific contradiction you have pointed out, I think there is a distinction that makes a difference, but others may disagree. When thinking about groups of people and the factors that influence their thoughts, feelings, and actions, I think it is fair to look at broad differences in reward systems and how those might tend to influence the group. For example, young associates in large, high prestige law firms work insane hours for years (at good pay, admittedly, but money, beyond a certain point that's not that high, doesn't buy happiness). They sacrifice personal lives and often relationships, are frequently extremely unhappy, depressed, anxious, and compromised by alcohol or drugs. But they do it for the "gold ring" of partnership in one of those firms. Thinking about (and researching) how that set of rewards and punishments influences thoughts, feelings, and behaviors -- including choices -- is justifiable, so long as one then does not automatically assign those generalizations to any specific individuals. Some may fit the generalities exactly, but others will vary widely.
So, in this case, attributing CKC's actions to "bad character" without broad and substantial evidence, and often in the face of contrary evidence, strikes me as very much a symptom of the worst of the anonymous internet. Thinking about how revenue sharing, NIL, and future pro possibilities affect, in general, the thoughts, feelings, and actions of college athletes seems justifiable. I doubt there is much disagreement about why so many D1 football players skip bowl games that are not part of the championship hunt.
Edited to add: And, yup, I probably defend CKC more because I like her and her "system" and wanted (still do) it and her to be successful. I'm unlikely, however, to deploy the same effort to defend that prime example of East Coast evil that ensnares vulnerable players and entangles the mind of enfeebled fans into his egregious excess of existential entropy. (How's that for balanced?)
Last edited:
