How non-experts con people- in this case Colin Cowherd

[MightyGiants]

There was a study recently where subjects listened to a non-expert and an expert on particular subjects and they were asked which speaker knew more about the topic.  Overwhelmingly the non-expert was picked because that person spoke with more certainty and in absolutes. 

Well, the football world certainly isn't immune to that sort of misperception.  Take a true expert like Greg Cossell.  When he speaks, he never uses absolutes; he defines his assumptions and what he knows and doesn't know and allows for the possibility of being wrong when that is a possibility.

Now I am going to post a video of Colin Cowherd talking about the Giants.  Notice how he speaks in absolutes, speaks with authority and confidence, and fails to define his assumptions.  For example, in this clip, here are his unspoken assumptions

1)  You must ignore what happened last season (the Giants go to the playoffs and win a playoff game) as Colin claims Jones can "ONLY" win if he "has a bunch of good players around him"

2)  Lawerence and Barkley are holding out because of Jones rather than listening to their agents and following their own desires

3)  The assumption is Colin Cowherd is a better evaluator of QB talent that coach of the year Daboll and Schoen

4)  That Dexter Lawerence's demands are not the result of wanting security (rather than playing on the 5th-year option) or because he has seen what other elite DTs are getting (two have just been signed)

5) That Saquan Barkley is critical to the Giants' success and that the Giants can't compete with without Barkley


Sorry, but those are absurd assumptions, which might explain why he never laid out the assumptions that his rant was based on.

[Painter]

That may be Colin Cowherd's opinion for which he is no less entitled than those of countless other self-annointed "perts" and WAGs some of whom we may favor when it happens to suit us. However, we would do well to keep in mind that these discussions no matter how civil and intelligent; not to mention well-informed, we wish them to be, are never beyond the reach of our personal conceits.

In this instance, I see no reason to focus on Cowherd as con man much less to infer that he is suggesting that he knows more than Brian Daboll for whom he never fails to express admiration and praise. But if you feel that we will be better educated if not entertained by such diatribe, that certainly is your prerogative.

With end of the Silly Season nigh, I would offer the following ditty sung and danced by two fine "Irish" lads, Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor, in film Singing in the Rain as summing up my thoughts on it all from start to finish.

Moses supposes his toeses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously.
For Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses
as Moses supposes his toeses to be.

Cheers!

[Ed Vette]

That may be Colin Cowherd's opinion for which he is no less entitled than those of countless other self-annointed "perts" and WAGs some of whom we may favor when it happens to suit us. However, we would do well to keep in mind that these discussions no matter how civil and intelligent; not to mention well-informed, we wish them to be, are never beyond the reach of our personal conceits.

In this instance, I see no reason to focus on Cowherd as con man much less to infer that he is suggesting that he knows more than Brian Daboll for whom he never fails to express admiration and praise. But if you feel that we will be better educated if not entertained by such diatribe, that certainly is your prerogative.

With end of the Silly Season nigh, I would offer the following ditty sung and danced by two fine "Irish" lads, Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor, in film Singing in the Rain as summing up my thoughts on it all from start to finish.

Moses supposes his toeses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously.
For Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses
as Moses supposes his toeses to be.

Cheers!

Examine the premise, apply it to other examples such as politics and confidence and delivery can be very persuasive. I'm sure we all can site examples of people in various situations that can be all BS but sound very convincing.

[Philosophers]

The greater problem seems to be the number of listeners/viewers who think these non-experts are knowledgeable.  People need to think for themselves and stop listening to confident speaking blowhards who generally have an agenda.

Cowherd, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Keith Olberman, anyone with a mic under their chin.

[nb587]

For sure, Cowherd is a nonexpert. He is an entertainer and I rarely, if ever listen to him. But, he regularly talks to experts who know far more about the subject matter than the average fan and is privy, through his contacts, to information not available to the average fan.  I have no opinion on anything he said principally because in the not too distant future, we will find out if what he says has merit.  But, I wouldn't rule it out just because it doesn't jive with what we believe or hope is true.

[MightyGiants]

For sure, Cowherd is a nonexpert. He is an entertainer and I rarely, if ever listen to him. But, he regularly talks to experts who know far more about the subject matter than the average fan and is privy, through his contacts, to information not available to the average fan.  I have no opinion on anything he said principally because in the not too distant future, we will find out if what he says has merit.  But, I wouldn't rule it out just because it doesn't jive with what we believe or hope is true.

The point is his claims are badly flawed.   That is why it would be wise to discard what Colin said.   If we discounted information just because it doesn't match what "we believe or hope to be true" we wouldn't be no better than Colin Cowherd.

[Philosophers]

I remember in the first Super Bowl against the Pats, Cowherd said the Giants would get destroyed because their best olayers did not matchbup against the Pats best like a best CB against a best WR (Randy Moss).  What he never realized was the Giants up the middle pass rush by great players was not a favorable matchup for the Pats.

[Painter]

Frankly, I see no reason to single out Cowherd for such scorn as he is doing no more than expressing his opinion which we so gleefully do right here every day in every way. If you find nothing of interest or value in that, or in what his couple or three daily guests: Coaches, Players, Pundits, etc have to say, why are watching/listening?

Moreover, unlike anything resembling present company, he does a weekly segment in which he reviews, "Where Colin Was Right; Where Colin Was Wrong." Perhaps, we should try something like that around here sometime.

In any case, let hope continues to be right in his effusive praise of Brian Daboll in contrast to the almost universal Meh! including more than a few apathetic voices right here regarding Danny- now 40 million- Dimes to Dollars.

Cheers!