• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Conspiracy? Bias? Dumb luck? Why do LFC get shit decisions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
I think Doubting Thomas is a good role model in this debate. Didn’t blindly go along with the account of the resurrection, he asked for evidence. Was critised at the time for not having just faith in what was obviously nonsense. Call me a doubting Thomas any day. I won’t be insulted.
It was an analogy, but to humour you....
You are a Doubting Thomas. You simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You refuse to contemplate, to attempt understanding of any phenomenon outside of your chosen notms because it fucks with the neatness and tidiness of the world.

You accuse me of tortured reasoning, and use derogatory language, and infer reduced sanity on my behalf every couple of days or pages, then wring your hands and declare yourself "out". I am now of the mind that its not really you wanting to insult me, or people who have a coalition of beliefs that you dont like. Its just that you really want us to implode, to prove OURSELVES wrong, so that normality and fairness and equity returns. Hence your repetitive search for "clarity" and the need to have all views conrary to yours neatly packaged up.
Really sorry, not happening. I guess more derision to follow, at least the tin foil hats seem to be put away......
 

SBYM

Who's the fella owns this shithole?
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
6,841
Poo poo the other source quoted yet expecting YOUR quoted source to be taken seriously. SMH (thanks Dane. Didn't realise I'd be using this so often).
I dismissed the other source because it is the work of some staff writer on virgin.com. It is marginally more useful to a meaningful discussion than the Arsenal fan blog on Mike Dean a few pages back, i.e. not at all.

If you can't see the difference between the above and a list of peer-review journal articles then I have a new acronym for ya...fmd...

At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think.

For the record, almost any societal or cultural institution, group, structure, etc is subject to unconscious biases working for/against it. LFC is absolutely no different in this regard.That these biases have had the impacts described in this thread has not been demonstrated by the evidence presented therein, and I am very confident that such positions would indeed be outright rejected (and probably ridiculed) were they raised in any serious discussion on the topic.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
I dismissed the other source because it is the work of some staff writer on virgin.com. It is marginally more useful to a meaningful discussion than the Arsenal fan blog on Mike Dean a few pages back, i.e. not at all.

If you can't see the difference between the above and a list of peer-review journal articles then I have a new acronym for ya...fmd...

At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think.

For the record, almost any societal or cultural institution, group, structure, etc is subject to unconscious biases working for/against it. LFC is absolutely no different in this regard.That these biases have had the impacts described in this thread has not been demonstrated by the evidence presented therein, and I am very confident that such positions would indeed be outright rejected (and probably ridiculed) were they raised in any serious discussion on the topic.
Interesting. If a person of your obvious intellect and academic standing is confident that the evidence presented here would be outright rejected and probably ridiculed in a serious discussion on the topic....
Then why are you wasting your time here??

Maybe, just maybe circumstances exist where the tens of thousands of academics would scratch their chins, review the evidence, determine cause and say, "they just might be right?"
Maybe, football is a world where quantitative data determines who lifts trophies whilst qualitative experience determines who doesnt.
 

SBYM

Who's the fella owns this shithole?
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
6,841
Interesting. If a person of your obvious intellect and academic standing is confident that the evidence presented here would be outright rejected and probably ridiculed in a serious discussion on the topic....
Then why are you wasting your time here??

Maybe, just maybe circumstances exist where the tens of thousands of academics would scratch their chins, review the evidence, determine cause and say, "they just might be right?"
Maybe, football is a world where quantitative data determines who lifts trophies whilst qualitative experience determines who doesnt.
Ha!! You've pulled this shit before...

If you don't like my posts put me on ignore. Otherwise, stop acting like a child. Hilarious that you got your nose out of joint about being told to grow up...
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
Ha!! You've pulled this shit before...

If you don't like my posts put me on ignore. Otherwise, stop acting like a child. Hilarious that you got your nose out of joint about being told to grow up...
Oh use the ignore button? I dont like some of your posts, but I dont use the ignore button.

A few of you on the forum, the faux bad boys revert to "put me on ignore" when you have nothing more to argue with. Its the equivilant of "its my ball and you cant play with me".
And you tell me to grow up! Brilliant.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
20,614
Lads, if you can’t conduct yourselves without insulting each other and generally being pricks, I’ll simply stop you taking part in the discussion.

What we have here is a difference of opinion, and that’s not worth falling out over.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,385
I dismissed the other source because it is the work of some staff writer on virgin.com. It is marginally more useful to a meaningful discussion than the Arsenal fan blog on Mike Dean a few pages back, i.e. not at all.

If you can't see the difference between the above and a list of peer-review journal articles then I have a new acronym for ya...fmd...

At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think.

For the record, almost any societal or cultural institution, group, structure, etc is subject to unconscious biases working for/against it. LFC is absolutely no different in this regard.That these biases have had the impacts described in this thread has not been demonstrated by the evidence presented therein, and I am very confident that such positions would indeed be outright rejected (and probably ridiculed) were they raised in any serious discussion on the topic.
I'm seriously confused by your stance and you've not addressed my point on you can't conclusively prove unconscious bias on a singular decision.

Take the decision not to send Kompany off against us. Now the correct decision would almost certainly be to have sent him off, referee got a clear look at it. Some form of bias almost certainly influenced this decision. Maybe not one expressly anti LFC maybe the Halo effect due to Kompany having a good reputation or a bias to follow the crowd (ie other officials) and not make game changing decisions unless forced or home field advantage. Maybe a combination of several biases. But it is extremely likely that bias of some form influenced the decision making on that one. But it can't be proven. Only the decision maker themselves can explore their own thinking and determine why they came to the decision they made on that single example.

Now if you took that referee and reviewed every decision he has had to make in the same situation you would then be able to spot trends. Expected trends could be players with bad reputations sent off more than ones with good reputations (for exact same fouls), incidents in lower profile games seeing a red card more frequently than in high profile games, foreign players sent off more often than English players, players on away sides sent off more often than players on the home side. These would be expected findings Yeah?

If such a study could be conducted some forms of unconscious bias COULD be proven across the officials in the game.

But you can only suggest a singular decision could look like it was influenced. You'd need to study a large section of near identical decisions to be able to determine proof that it's influence is evident.
 

James H

"One word: Thundercougarfalconbird"
Ad-free Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
2,008
If such a study could be conducted some forms of unconscious bias COULD be proven across the officials in the game.
But you cant PROVE it, you could merely interpret the results to mean bias by actively ignoring every other variable, down to something as simple as what kind of humour the ref was in that particular day, what external stresses was he facing pre man city game that he may or may not have been facing any other day.

Human pshychology is far more complex than this happened and thats the result of it. There is build up, outside factors, internal factors, sleep levels etc. While i think there is always a possibility of bias I think a conversation on unconcious bias in unproductive, unproveable and unfinishable, ergo pointless.
 

Barnestormer

Left wing.
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,626
But you cant PROVE it, you could merely interpret the results to mean bias by actively ignoring every other variable, down to something as simple as what kind of humour the ref was in that particular day, what external stresses was he facing pre man city game that he may or may not have been facing any other day.

Human pshychology is far more complex than this happened and thats the result of it. There is build up, outside factors, internal factors, sleep levels etc. While i think there is always a possibility of bias I think a conversation on unconcious bias in unproductive, unproveable and unfinishable, ergo pointless.
lol arf lol arf, exactly
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
13,271
There is important historical context to the difference in the Suarez vs Terry issue. At the time of the game, the FA were in the process of fighting a PR battle to try to position its world cup bid. I dont remember the specifics of the case that made this an issue, but a part of that was demonstrating the the FA was on the moral high ground when it came to racism, largely as a result of its Englishness. Throwing the book at Suarez was an example they could use to demonstrate that that nicely fell into the lap at just the right time. Doing the same to Terry wouldnt have helped that narrative, what with him being the captain of the England side, and so they treated that with the same pathetic indifference they normally do.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,385
Unconscious bias cannot be proven, which is why psychologists talk of correlation. In the least we are dealing with something in which the actor in the scene is not even aware himself.
This is my stance. I believe it's there and has an effect. It's someone else that believes it can be proved one way or another on individual instances.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
There is important historical context to the difference in the Suarez vs Terry issue. At the time of the game, the FA were in the process of fighting a PR battle to try to position its world cup bid. I dont remember the specifics of the case that made this an issue, but a part of that was demonstrating the the FA was on the moral high ground when it came to racism, largely as a result of its Englishness. Throwing the book at Suarez was an example they could use to demonstrate that that nicely fell into the lap at just the right time. Doing the same to Terry wouldnt have helped that narrative, what with him being the captain of the England side, and so they treated that with the same pathetic indifference they normally do.
May have been a factor, but surely with the evidence available on both occasions, the word of a serial liar to condemn Suarez vs the irrefutable evidence against Terry would at least have equalised the punishments. Consistency would have been a strenght the FA could have utilised in how they dealt with the issue. The foreign player factor may have mitigated against Suarez, as well, but again if the FA were demonstrating a higher moral ground they could or would have made an example of Terry to show how seriously they were dealing with racism.
I genuinely believe the outcome of the Suarez case was constructed from Fergusons narrative on him. He presented as a threat, so demonising him was a good tactic. If he made a racist comment he should have been punished. No question. But as I said the evidence against him was sketchy, in comparrison with Terry. Suarez was punished for more than his comment to Evra.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,385
But you cant PROVE it, you could merely interpret the results to mean bias by actively ignoring every other variable, down to something as simple as what kind of humour the ref was in that particular day, what external stresses was he facing pre man city game that he may or may not have been facing any other day.

Human pshychology is far more complex than this happened and thats the result of it. There is build up, outside factors, internal factors, sleep levels etc. While i think there is always a possibility of bias I think a conversation on unconcious bias in unproductive, unproveable and unfinishable, ergo pointless.
I'm saying it exists and it will have an effect on human decision makers. I'm also saying if you could recreate the same circumstances over and over again you COULD show evidence of it having some effects. But I'm the one arguing that it can't be proven and have been for weeks. It's the other guy laughing at my stance on that;

"At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think."
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
12,733
I dismissed the other source because it is the work of some staff writer on virgin.com. It is marginally more useful to a meaningful discussion than the Arsenal fan blog on Mike Dean a few pages back, i.e. not at all.

If you can't see the difference between the above and a list of peer-review journal articles then I have a new acronym for ya...fmd...

At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think.

For the record, almost any societal or cultural institution, group, structure, etc is subject to unconscious biases working for/against it. LFC is absolutely no different in this regard.That these biases have had the impacts described in this thread has not been demonstrated by the evidence presented therein, and I am very confident that such positions would indeed be outright rejected (and probably ridiculed) were they raised in any serious discussion on the topic.
To all in this thread, I think it is worth noting what @SBYM is saying. Not simply for the content - but the fact he is saying it. Prior to this discussion I've never seen him post anything but jokey comments in this forum. He clearly has some understanding on this issue.
 

Scott Jones

Blunt
Ad-free Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
14,834
To all in this thread, I think it is worth noting what @SBYM is saying. Not simply for the content - but the fact he is saying it. Prior to this discussion I've never seen him post anything but jokey comments in this forum. He clearly has some understanding on this issue.
Jokey:eh?:,so meant to be funny,i thought he was just fucking weird.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
12,404
To all in this thread, I think it is worth noting what @SBYM is saying. Not simply for the content - but the fact he is saying it. Prior to this discussion I've never seen him post anything but jokey comments in this forum. He clearly has some understanding on this issue.
He's blown his cover. Might have to go back and re-read all of his posts now that he's revealed he's not really a total clown. Puts them in a whole new perspective...

If we find out Jonesey's got a doctorate we've all been played.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
To all in this thread, I think it is worth noting what @SBYM is saying. Not simply for the content - but the fact he is saying it. Prior to this discussion I've never seen him post anything but jokey comments in this forum. He clearly has some understanding on this issue.
Yes he has some understanding on the issue of unconcious bias. And kudos to him for that understanding.
But the understanding of the rationales, multiple and complex as to why biases exist against Liverpool city and club us best expressed by others in here.
Please consider the historical, statistical and emotional points of debate, as well as the scientific reasons given by SYBM.
His knowledge on biases isnt questioned, but its the application of that knowledge to the debate that doesnt take all the other factors into account.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
13,271
May have been a factor, but surely with the evidence available on both occasions, the word of a serial liar to condemn Suarez vs the irrefutable evidence against Terry would at least have equalised the punishments. Consistency would have been a strenght the FA could have utilised in how they dealt with the issue. The foreign player factor may have mitigated against Suarez, as well, but again if the FA were demonstrating a higher moral ground they could or would have made an example of Terry to show how seriously they were dealing with racism.
I genuinely believe the outcome of the Suarez case was constructed from Fergusons narrative on him. He presented as a threat, so demonising him was a good tactic. If he made a racist comment he should have been punished. No question. But as I said the evidence against him was sketchy, in comparrison with Terry. Suarez was punished for more than his comment to Evra.
Taking the Terry inicident seriously would require them to drop the Captain of their side for a tournament they (haha) thought they were going to win. That was never going to happen, so it was easier to hide behind the he said-he said aspect of that case and accept Terry's BS explanation. There was no consequence to them from making an example of Suarez, only the upside of demonstrating to the world that the English are woke when it came to racism, unlike the yobs and barbarians they were competing with for the World cup. So yes, I agree Suarez was punished for more than his actual comment. I think that was my point.
 
Last edited:

Barnestormer

Left wing.
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,626
May have been a factor, but surely with the evidence available on both occasions, the word of a serial liar to condemn Suarez vs the irrefutable evidence against Terry would at least have equalised the punishments. Consistency would have been a strenght the FA could have utilised in how they dealt with the issue. The foreign player factor may have mitigated against Suarez, as well, but again if the FA were demonstrating a higher moral ground they could or would have made an example of Terry to show how seriously they were dealing with racism.
I genuinely believe the outcome of the Suarez case was constructed from Fergusons narrative on him. He presented as a threat, so demonising him was a good tactic. If he made a racist comment he should have been punished. No question. But as I said the evidence against him was sketchy, in comparrison with Terry. Suarez was punished for more than his comment to Evra.
No less though, if we can step outside of our own, say pro-LFC bias, Suarez almost by his conduct gave rise to the media bias against him. The analogy of a pantomime is perfect. No doubt Ferguson was the arch villain with a plain appearance and underhanded objective, Suarez the naive, but talented fool, about to be ruined. It was not just his comments to Evra, which you have correct, played into the hands of an organisation seeking to claim the moral high ground in stamping out racism (or being seen to), it was also as you correctly say, that he was a threat to Manure's dominance, and envy must have brooded that we had a talent far in excess of what they had. Also, Suarez's conduct, in having a history of psychological imbalance from biting players, perfected the demonisation, and enabled the rendering to be justified. Arguably, though, I think this would have happened even if these events occurred if Suarez had been at Arsenal. It simultaneously exemplifies the cruel distortions, and spell weaving that humans engage in. And the spell was complete when Suarez downed tools and ran from the premier league to reinvent himself.
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
686
It was an analogy, but to humour you....
You are a Doubting Thomas. You simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You refuse to contemplate, to attempt understanding of any phenomenon outside of your chosen notms because it fucks with the neatness and tidiness of the world.

You accuse me of tortured reasoning, and use derogatory language, and infer reduced sanity on my behalf every couple of days or pages, then wring your hands and declare yourself "out". I am now of the mind that its not really you wanting to insult me, or people who have a coalition of beliefs that you dont like. Its just that you really want us to implode, to prove OURSELVES wrong, so that normality and fairness and equity returns. Hence your repetitive search for "clarity" and the need to have all views conrary to yours neatly packaged up.
Really sorry, not happening. I guess more derision to follow, at least the tin foil hats seem to be put away......
I don’t recall ever doubting your sanity. I am not back on this seemingly never ending post just to insult you and apologies if you think I have. You are right though, I do believe in normality and fairness. I also believe in the in
importance of objective evidence, scientific methods and proof. If you let go of these concepts and fall back on the “well obviously it can never be proved but it’s obvious” school of thought then we might as well talk about the impact the anfield fairies have on the refs. Truth matters, science matters, objectivity matters and this little debate is a microcosm for me how for some people like you the importance of these ideas seems to be being eroded. If you don’t need real tangible evidence for ideas anymore “because it’s obvious” then pretty much the last 200 hundred years since the age of enlightenment has been pointless.

So I don’t really care that much about bias or conspiracies or any of the stuff that we all seem obsessed with on here. I just find myself despairing at how we are going backwards as a society in our approach to truth. Probably another thread though and not one that will get to 43 pages I suspect.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,385
I don’t recall ever doubting your sanity. I am not back on this seemingly never ending post just to insult you and apologies if you think I have. You are right though, I do believe in normality and fairness. I also believe in the in
importance of objective evidence, scientific methods and proof. If you let go of these concepts and fall back on the “well obviously it can never be proved but it’s obvious” school of thought then we might as well talk about the impact the anfield fairies have on the refs. Truth matters, science matters, objectivity matters and this little debate is a microcosm for me how for some people like you the importance of these ideas seems to be being eroded. If you don’t need real tangible evidence for ideas anymore “because it’s obvious” then pretty much the last 200 hundred years since the age of enlightenment has been pointless.

So I don’t really care that much about bias or conspiracies or any of the stuff that we all seem obsessed with on here. I just find myself despairing at how we are going backwards as a society in our approach to truth. Probably another thread though and not one that will get to 43 pages I suspect.
Unconscious bias is most definitely science.

What I've attempted (and seemingly failed) is to provide reasons as to why our club is in a unique situation where an unprecedented set of circumstances could have (and likely have in my mind) led to the type of bias that have been, scientifically, proven to exist in other fields and walks of life.

If it's not nice enough to fit into your idealised version of a fair world then that's your problem. But it is still science and not fairy stories.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
I don’t recall ever doubting your sanity. I am not back on this seemingly never ending post just to insult you and apologies if you think I have. You are right though, I do believe in normality and fairness. I also believe in the in
importance of objective evidence, scientific methods and proof. If you let go of these concepts and fall back on the “well obviously it can never be proved but it’s obvious” school of thought then we might as well talk about the impact the anfield fairies have on the refs. Truth matters, science matters, objectivity matters and this little debate is a microcosm for me how for some people like you the importance of these ideas seems to be being eroded. If you don’t need real tangible evidence for ideas anymore “because it’s obvious” then pretty much the last 200 hundred years since the age of enlightenment has been pointless.

So I don’t really care that much about bias or conspiracies or any of the stuff that we all seem obsessed with on here. I just find myself despairing at how we are going backwards as a society in our approach to truth. Probably another thread though and not one that will get to 43 pages I suspect.
You opened a thread on the "Two Tribes" documentary in the Albert. You saw and heard in that programme how Liverpool was being treated, and read how other forum members in here lived it. You have read the accounts of people in here, read the study carried out on points gaps due to poor decisions. The evidence is there, not as tangible as you desire, but there nonetheless.

You still need to have a liitle dig with the "people like you" comment, suggesting that matters such as science or objectivity dont matter to me. And the Anfield fairies comment is another thinly veiled insult at what a number of people in here are observing and knowing exists. Well you know what, these things matter to me. But I refuse to be blinded with the common view of fairness and equity existing. Life isnt like that. 200 years since the age of enlightenment and some people still think the world is a fair and equitable place. Its easier to believe in Anfield fairies sprinkling stardust on the Kop.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
631
Unconscious bias is most definitely science.

What I've attempted (and seemingly failed) is to provide reasons as to why our club is in a unique situation where an unprecedented set of circumstances could have (and likely have in my mind) led to the type of bias that have been, scientifically, proven to exist in other fields and walks of life.

If it's not nice enough to fit into your idealised version of a fair world then that's your problem. But it is still science and not fairy stories.
In truth you have not failed. You underpinned what a lot of people thought. Fair dues.
 

James H

"One word: Thundercougarfalconbird"
Ad-free Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
2,008
I'm saying it exists and it will have an effect on human decision makers. I'm also saying if you could recreate the same circumstances over and over again you COULD show evidence of it having some effects. But I'm the one arguing that it can't be proven and have been for weeks. It's the other guy laughing at my stance on that;

"At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think."
Fair enough, but i dont think you can show that evidence even by recreating the scenario , it wouldnt recreate the wider circumstances. Thats basically my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.