re: Rational v. Emotional thinking: the posi-nega distinction

quote:

---

Funny this is Nash was completely off his rocker when he developed the basis for those theories.
Was it his “emotions” or maybe “logical” thinking that told him (and his wife) it was ok to not wear a seatbelt in a cab which crashed and killed both of them. He was conditioned that way because he likely never drove and was raised when seatbelts were not required. He behaved himself to death.

---

well often the people who theorize new ideas don't bring them to their full heights, often due to the bias of creation itelf

but like in poker. GTO means you open x range of hands in y position z % of the time. you defend x range of hands in y position z% of the time. etc etc etc. there is no emotion or "reading" of players. now, it's hard for humans to play GTO because they can't randomize things perfectly in their head, but that's the only thing really holding them back (and that's still not emotional. it's just a limitation of our brains. if they were allowed a randomizer at the table they could play close to GTO)

quote:

---

Nicely reasoned as always but what is really kind of rankling me, a person who is by nature a realistic optimist , is this idea that the Only outcome here can be negative. When in fact there is every indication that our actual team could be much- improved next year based on interior line play, a pretty filthy defense led by a great coordinator, and maybe having our coaches be on the same page in terms of philosophy. I’ve never been a “Coach O guy “ because I don’t believe he has the temperament to be a CEO of an entire program and I don’t trust his decision logic . But I balance that skepticism against the boorishness and insufferability of being a constant voice of negativity and dissension . That’s because I understand the power of self-fulfilling-prophecy and the risk of creating this mood of doom and gloom around the program. And I also realize ( as so many others refuse to acknowledge) that I am only operating with a fraction of the information needed to analyze the actual facts. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns , as it were. So realizing that, and not wanting to be a boorish a-hole, I choose to bite my tongue , keep my opinions ( mostly ) to myself, speak with a certain level of humility that acknowledges I have no control over any of this, and try to focus on the positives . Of which there are MANY.

---

the best way to put things in the proper perspective. excellent post pimp.

quote:

---

I literally heard Jordy Culotta say "People in the building are telling us that there are systemic roster problems that cannot be solved during the season. People in the building are telling me that we will have to recruit our way out of it over the next few seasons.

---

that, of course, is heresay. Jordy culotta? people in the building? but, once again, why nit pick? if you couldn't see the holes in this team I don't know what to tell you. the lack of success in the red zone was very revealing.

quote:

---

He didn't use the words "complete rebuild" in that diatribe, yet that's what he's describing. Systemic roster problems. Multiple recruiting classes. You tell me.

---

because we didn't need a complete rebuild but we were less than stellar on the OL, QB and WR positions. I don't give a damn about semantics but we MUST have a passing offense that actually works in the red zone. it doesn't matter what type of offense you run if you have top guys at those positions.

quote:

---

if you couldn't see the holes in this team I don't know what to tell you.

---

if the roster required a rebuild, i know what to tell you: don't hire a guy like Ed O to do it

hence why we were sold on the team being ready and just in need of few tweaks. that's the only way hiring O makes sense

why would you ever hire a guy with O's resume to build a program? what data is there to justify that hire?

quote:

---

There is a lot of confusion by the pro-Orgeron faction about what being a "negatiger" really means. I'm here to enlighten you all so hopefully you stop making the same logical errors when trying to make your points. the biggest distinction between the CheeriOs and the negas is based in the type of thinking being used.

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence...Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Making a rational decision, on the other hand, involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). The process is the most important part of rational thinking. A sound conclusion (output) requires high-quality inputs (e.g., accurate information and access to the right people) and a high-quality thinking process. Focusing on the inputs is not enough to ensure success; we need to give equal attention to the process or what we do with the inputs—how we collect, organize, and analyze them.

People are labeled as "negatiger" because they are seen as desiring a negative outcome for the LSU program. However, what the positigers miss is that negatigers are actually analyzing the current state/direction of the program as being sub-optimal. Due to this analysis, they rationally assess the likelihood of a positive outcome being decreased. They are not HOPING for a negative outcome; they are EXPECTING a negative outcome. The positiger/CherriO factions have trouble understanding this mindset because they are subjectively and emotionally hoping (and praying, to quote O) for a positive season. You have created a biased view of the world where you see people "hoping" (emotional thnking) and not "analyzing" (rational thinking), and you confuse the two. Expecting a mediocre-bad season due to rational analysis is not the same thing as hoping for a bad season due to emotional desire.

This ties in strongly with the process-oriented v. results-oriented strategies that we can discuss later. To summarize, positigers are results-oriented and negatigers are process-oriented. There are strengths and weaknesses to both, but only a process-oriented decisionmaking tree along with a good plan and detailed execution will lead to long-term, consistent results. This is what Saban described as "the process" when he was coach here and it's what he's using at Alabama to create the greatest dynasty in the history of CFB. That's the only way we will compete with his programs consistently.

---

I'm the most rational/logical person you will ever meet.

I can tell you that you will find emotional thinkers on both end of the spectrum (posi-tiger and nega-tiger). I know this because it kills me to see emotional thinking. And, I can find myself arguing against both the posi-tiger and nega-tiger point of view in the same thread. If I had to say, I think see more emotional thinking on the "nega-tiger" side. That may be related to the current state of the program though.

Additionally, as a result, I've probably been labeled as a "posi-tiger" during the season because I applied a rational approach. The majority of those I disagreed with were "nega-tigers" who were simply angry when you brought up reasonable reasons for failures that may not have been coaching related.

quote:

---

This ties in strongly with the process-oriented v. results-oriented strategies that we can discuss later. To summarize, positigers are results-oriented and negatigers are process-oriented.

---

I can't agree here either. I can't tell you how many times you see nega-tigers who can't see past the result even when a particular decision may have been reasonable.

I do agree that a process-oriented approach is a key indicator of success. I'm pretty much convinced we do not have that. The Ensminger hire itself, and Ensminger's own words referencing play calling over his process convinced me of that.

In short, I love this topic. I promote rational thinking. But, I disagree with your conclusion of the correlation.

Your post would hold weight if it were actually true. The Truth is that both sides are using emotion in far greater quantities than rationale.

The negas are emotionally invested in the idea that everything is crashing and burning. There is also a smaller portion of the negas who are outright cheering for the whole thing to collapse. Hell one guy started a thread stating he hopes Bama beats us every year as long as O is the HC. You really gonna try to tell me that ANY form of rational thinking lead him to want to cheer for Bama? That's the most irrational thing I've ever heard of coming from a so called tiger fan.

The posi-O's are using counter emotion to defend their beloved tigers and in turn the HC. A lot of us Posi-O's have worries and criticisms of the current staff but we can't really discuss them because the negas take everything to extremes. We find ourselves blindly defending O and the Tigers against ridiculous attacks from the negas. For most of us, it's not that we don't see flaws in the current administration as much as we can see that everything isn't going to crash and burn overnight.

my dude.

I did t read it all, but in your much esteemed opinion which is the rational thinker and which is emotional out.of the posi and nega fan?

Sure

"people who have given the frick up and act like we can't compete with Bama are the real negatigers. they're just settling"

What I think people sometimes forget is the relatively thin margin separating "good" teams like LSU and dominant programs. Some programs don't have the talent base to recruit from and the talent gap can be enormous. This really isn't true for us. An example of this is how quickly Saban was able to turn things around at both LSU and Bama. It doesn't mean that we have made the right decisions but it means that if the right decisions or made - or you get lucky - the rise can be quick from the starting point our program has.