One of the things I really love about sports is that it’s true human theater. At its best, it exposes our humanity, our strange psychology. It’s like a play, except that nobody - not even the participants - knows the ending.
A few things happened in sports over the last few weeks that i find interesting from a psychology perspective. The first is the issue of the Patriots and Deflategate. I realize that many of you find sports terribly dull, but bear with me here: the game of football, like many modern games, has a lot of rules about equipment. One of those rules is that the balls themselves have to be inflated to a specific pressure. There are various sports-y reasons for this, but suffice it to say that an under-inflated ball can have certain advantages. Somewhat bizarrely, the NFL allows the teams to supply their own balls, although they are checked by the officials. Well, it appears that, during the run-up to last year’s Super Bowl, the winning Patriots most likely systematically under-inflated their footballs, and that their star quarterback most likely knew it was happening. Now, it is clear that this is not the reason they won the game; the Super Bowl was a blowout, and the Patriots certainly would’ve won anyway. But - in sports - as in life - that isn’t the point, is it? A tweet from another player on another team sums it up:
“1. I'm not surprised 2. They still won and a deflated football doesn't help that much 3. It's all about integrity”
Integrity…an interesting concept. Nobody thinks that what the Patriots did is necessarily the cause of their victory. And it’s not clear that anyone is seriously suggesting that they should return the trophy. But what is clear is this: people don’t like the Patriots. There is an almost universal sense that most people wish they hadn’t won. Yes, they are winners, but really, they are still losers.
One more example from a different sport drives this point home. Last week was the “fight of the century” in boxing. Mayweather vs. Pacquaio. It was incredibly hyped and both fighters made over $100 million. From a sports standpoint, it was a boring fight, both in practice and in theory. The better fighter - Mayweather - won handily, using a very effective strategy. He boxed well and won. Nothing to see here. But what interests me is this: everybody hates the guy. One commentator said he “lacked likability”. Of course, there’s the fact that he’s a confirmed wife beater and a jerk. But that isn’t all of it: he also just *isn’t very good at being entertaining*. People don’t like watching him box. His style is boring and defensive. It’s effective, but it isn’t fun. And people very much want him to lose. Conversely, Pacquaio - who is apparently also a little loose with the women and possibly a bit of a jerk - is a national hero and loved by millions. Why? Well, perhaps it’s at least partly because he obviously wants to entertain us. He cares that we’re enjoying watching him box.
What is the overall lesson here? I’m not sure, but I think it’s something like this: “winning”, in life, is at best a secondary goal. It’s an objective to aim for, but it’s really about the journey, not the destination. Bagging that dream job, or dream girl, or dream apartment, isn’t as important as how you conduct yourself on the way there, and what you do with it when you arrive. This week another thing happened: Stephen Colbert donated $800k to the teachers of South Carolina, in dramatic fashion: he approved ever single grant request from them to a specific Kickstarter-esque website for teachers. Everyone loves the guy (including me), and with good reason.