Sportsmanship and Dunning-Kruger

By Jack Furlong

Founder/President/CEO

Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
 
In short, this effect is a psychological phenomenon that says that people who are not smart believe they are smarter than they actually are, while people who are actually smart believe they are not smart.
 
It has overtones of both ‘ignorance is bliss’ and ‘knowledge is half the battle.’  We could certainly go down many paths of discussion as we examine what is truly happening in the minds of those being tasked to demonstrate this effect.  But let’s try to keep it simple.
 
Across all sports and competition, the Dunning-Kruger effect is prominent regardless of the role.  If you’ve never been seriously inside the circle of being a player, coach, parent, fan, official, or media member, it’s entirely possible you may succumb to this effect.  And if it’s not you, you can easily find someone else who will!
 
How many non-players think it’s easy to hit a fastball traveling at 90mph?  How many armchair quarterbacks think they could handle the pressure of being the head coach of an NFL team in a close game?  How many of the 50,000 screaming patrons think they can do a better job than the professional official on the field in front of them?  We could keep asking these questions…
 
Ironically, Dunning-Kruger points towards empathy as being key.  Lacking conscious empathy for others usually is a formula for this effect to fill the vacancy.  And it’s through this empathy that we can build and tap into good sportsmanship.
 
But there’s a new wrinkle to this story in today’s world.  In the name of ‘slicing the baloney too thin,’ those who are defensive in response to the possibility that they just might not be good at something tend to be the same ones who do not see the forest for the trees, seeking to highlight the possible existence of subjective truth and how it can trump innocent opinions.
 
To help demonstrate a recent example of Dunning-Kruger, a gentleman with an interest in flying aircraft (but with no training) was given ample opportunity to watch training videos and play video game simulators before being thrust into a true brick-and-mortar flight simulator to see if he had the knowledge and experience to do it professionally.  His task was to pilot a plane in three scenarios, each requiring landing the aircraft.
 
He barely succeeded in the first attempt with the help of an auto-pilot program.  His second landing destroyed the landing gear.  His third was a failure.
 
In a more innocent world, most people would simply use this as an example of this effect.  However, in today’s world, where everyone’s opinion is plastered throughout social media, there are people who are choosing to frame the gentleman’s experience as a success.
 
Their rationale?  In two of the three attempts, the passengers on the plane probably would have lived.  If a situation arose where the pilots took ill and an inexperienced passenger had to land a commercial aircraft, an objective person (not currently succumbing to the adrenaline and fear of potential death) sees a 67% chance of success and likes the odds!
 
The joke, however, is on them, as this just illustrates Dunning-Kruger even more.  If those people were actually on the flight, faced with the possibility that death was imminent, and had to put their faith in a stranger with no more than a 67% success rate to ensure they live, one would imagine they would be singing a different tune.  (And if they aren’t, what are the odds they’re a psychopath?)
 
The same is true in sports.  Demonstrate that human umpires in Major League Baseball get 96% of ball/strike calls correct (which is 6% more than the computers when the automatic system was first discussed) and watch two distinct reactions:  those with empathy for umpires (or those who have umpired before) look in awe at the professionals who get that many calls correct, while those lacking empathy (or who haven’t umpired before) complain about the 4% that were technically incorrect, regardless of whether they were consequential to the outcome of the game.
 
“But even if one missed pitch didn’t affect the outcome of an at-bat, it could have had an effect on another plate appearance, as one less bullet was in the pitcher’s arm!”
 
I rest my case.
 
Why is the vitriol prominent?  One potential reason is the advent of sports betting.  We live in a world where a bettor can wager on something as minute as a pitch being a ball or a strike.  A pitcher may throw a strike by the letter of the law, but if an umpire calls it a ball, no amount of truth can overturn that.
 
Yet, Major League Baseball is instituting a challenge system for balls and strikes this season, allowing players to attempt to “right a wrong.”  However, challenges are finite:  each team only has two per game, and they are only retained if the challenge is successful.  Strategy now plays a role in how to seek a correct outcome.
 
We’ve reached a point where money (and our attachment to it) is now potentially influencing Dunning-Kruger.  The emotional intangibles that once naturally governed the psychology of Dunning-Kruger (“I’m not currently in a life-or-death situation, but I could easily land a plane with no experience, and a 67% chance of success is in my favor”) have morphed into a capitalist hodgepodge (“I have no experience umpiring baseball, but based on how I’ve lost money betting on balls and strikes since the umpire was incorrect and I should have won money, I know I can do a better job”).  But the structure of Dunning-Kruger hasn’t changed.  Rather, the lens has shifted, as we have replaced one variable with another without altering the stasis of this experience.
 
It doesn’t matter why it happens.  It matters that it happens.  We’ve known that it happens and that it will continue to happen.  We can’t stop the phenomenon; rather, we can only react to its existence.  And the proper reaction is empathy.  After all, wait until you get in the batter’s box and try to hit a fastball at 90mph with no experience doing it.  Trust me:  you’ll change your tune!