A biased Signing
How Jürgen Klopp became a victim of the confirmation bias
I do not remember many games I watched in the former Westfalenstadion. Still, when the game detonates emotionally, a neural pathway seems to have enough electrical charge to survive the passing of time.
One of these games, when the stadium exploded in several climaxes, was the 4-4 of Dortmund against Stuttgart in 2012.
Julian Schieber scored two goals for Stuttgart within minutes, reversing the score temporarily from 2-1 to 2-3 (2 of all his entire 6 goals for Stuttgart). Not enough drama, Dortmund flipped the score in the last minutes to 4-3. However, the ultimate climax (at least for Stuttgart supporters) was the last-second equalizer by Christian Gentner.
It was one of these games for which we all love football.
But what does this match have to do with a biased signing you ask?
Well, Dortmund and Jürgen Klopp ended up signing Schieber the next summer. So we will view this transfer with the aid of the confirmation bias.
Spoiler: Klopp turns “Doubters into believers”.
Confirmation Bias Costs in Football
Cognitive Scientists lately begin to enlighten the mechanism behind decision-making. At the forefront of cognitive science is Daniel Kahnemann, who elaborates in his Bestseller Thinking, Fast and Slow, on how the mind operates. Kahneman questions the assumption that humans are rational beings. First and foremost, we are emotional creatures. Consequently, our thought processes are primarily intuitive (or fast) rather than cold-hearted and analytical. Thinking is thus prone to errors referred to as cognitive Biases. These Biases impede the determination of reality and probability, therefore, hijack good decision-making.
Since football is hyperemotional, even calm responsible managers are victims of passionate conclusions, despite their best attempts to decidedly rationally. Especially in signing players, an emotional reaction can be quite costly. So the football industry is particularly prone to burying money in an aroused state of mind. And one of these Biases that is definitely present in Football is the Confirmation Bias.
So what is it? How does it work? Why does it exist? And how is it manifesting in football?
"What you see is all there is"
The confirmation Bias describes our proclivity to confirm existing beliefs about reality. The confirmation bias can therefore be understood as a projection mechanism of the mind. Reality is seen from the perspective of the belief rather than the belief constructed from empirical data. Such deception occurs in various patterns.
One is to only see data that confirms the belief and ignore all information that contradicts it. Thereby the mind protects the idea from encountering opposing facts. Such a mechanism is the mildest form of confirmation bias and refers to selective information seeking because it filters out information. It makes us partially bind, cognitively speaking.
A more deluding form is the unconscious misinterpretation of incongruent information so that it fits into the existing mental framework. Reality, thereby, is twisted to fit into the belief system. Such a Reality Distortion effect is exactly reverse to the scientific method, thus supporting the view of humans as social-emotional creatures, not cognitive ones. In science, every theory is only a temporary product never an absolute end state, contrary to the Confirmation bias, which is trying to mold reality into a belief system.
Independent of its specific manifestation, the confirmation bias is basically an overconfidence in your own beliefs. Presenting this cognitive flaw in this way is superior because overconfidence escapes moral judgment. Initially distorting reality might appear evil. But rather than ignoring and warping disconfirming data consciously, being convinced occurs unconsciously. Thus the basis of the confirmation bias is self-deception or self-persuasion, not conscious manipulation of others.
However, we are all prone to some degree to the mechanism of confirming our beliefs, no matter how much we try not to be. If this bias is so stable across humans, we have to ask why this effect exists. Why has nature programmed into us the tendency to verify our theories instead of being hyper-real and rational? What survival benefit could derive from seeing reality wrong and not adopting a proper view? Is the confirmation bias an advantageous and adaptive trait?
What kind of advantage could that be? And if it is adaptive, is it really a bias?
Confirmation = cooperation?
From an evolutionary perspective, humans have a paradoxical niche: we are hyper-vulnerable alone but extremely powerful together. Therefore the most important environment for humans is other people. Why?
Humans cannot survive alone. Nature has too many threats for a loner to survive. Either you will starve to death because hunting success is at least partially random. Even worse our natural predators such as snakes or lions will defeat us in a one-on-one. But when humans collectively fight these threats, they can dwarf them and become predators instead of prey.
Thus our social group acts as an insurance for survival, but only under the condition of mutual cooperation.
Therefore evolutionary biologists assume that the prefrontal cortex and our capacity for abstract thought actually evolved to understand other people and not the physics of the universe. (The capability to understand the Laws of Nature is an exaptation of cognitive-social evolution.) Natural Selection favored those who prove to be good cooperators (at least intra-group). But in order to cooperate we have to align our interests and behaviors to pursue common goals.
In support, researchers hypothesize that humans are rather social innovators, not technical innovators. Meaning, because of the significance of the group, humans gravitate toward social rather than technical solutions to their problems. (This of course is not a black-white dichotomy. People obviously invent also technical solutions.) For example, instead of inventing a tool that can scratch my back, it is the first choice to ask if your neighbor can scratch my back. Such a social service improves social coherence and increases trust, hence further investing in the social capital.
So what does the fact that social reality is primary have to do with the confirmation bias?
Social beliefs and behavior alignment
The idea why the confirmation bias is adaptive, is discussed by several cognitive scientists. One of the most refined theories is called “Reality matching” entertained by Uwe Peters. (The original paper can be downloaded here). Reality matching describes the ability to create a cooperative social reality by impressing beliefs onto tribe members (so called social beliefs) and thereby increase the probability of nudging their behavior towards a shared goal.
Thus reality matching explains how the confirmation bias can create self-fulfilling, but useful, social prophecies. This can occur in two cases. Positive assumptions (cooperative, friendly, trustworthy, hard-working) about a group member would positively mold his action toward the good of the group. Furthermore, a member who acts upon those beliefs will gain trust and continually be supported by the group.
For negative beliefs, the reality matching theory could act more indirectly, by functionalizing collective shame. Shame is a very powerful motivator to change behavior, again because survival was only possible when the group supported individuals. Thus shame is psychologically associated with ostracism (being cast away from the group). Therefore shame might be an early psychological indicator of being potentially excluded by the tribe. Consequently, if someone is shamed for an action, the confirmation bias forces that person to adapt and conform to the group's needs.
The idea is thus consistent with the priority of social reality and states that the confirmation bias evolved mainly to ‘make’ social reality.
(That said, this obviously is not a monocausal explanation. All complex phenomena are shaped by various forces.)
Beside understanding the benefits of the confirmation bias, we have to ask how it is executed, and how it emerges within society. Obviously, if all people imprint their beliefs onto all members of the tribe no real consensus could emerge. Such a situation would exist as pure chaos.
Therefore besides knowing why, the how the confirmation bias manifest must be addressed. And the missing link is to enlighten the function of leadership.
(Self)persuasion and Leaders
It is well reported that people with high confidence in their statements can persuade more effectively than people with lower confidence. And we already acknowledged that the confirmation bias is fundamentally an overconfidence effect. Confidence thus can be understood as a contagious factor in the spreading of ideas. So what personality type is most prone to suffer (or thrive?!) from overconfidence?
It is the leader.
Remember that someone who persuades others, is not manipulating consciously but is rather self-persuaded. If therefore someone displays tremendous trust in his/her beliefs, this means he/she will act upon them. They then embody ideas. The idea has skin in the game. They become the idea.
And in the most extreme case, someone is even willing to bet his life on a belief. (One can clearly see how religious belief thus might have been preserved in individual martyrism.) Because of this passionate believing, people listen to such self-persuaders, uplifting them organically as natural leader within their tribes .
Thus leaders are automatically the most influential part of our beliefs and thereby create social reality.
Finally, we have made the circle back to Klopp.
Klopp the (biased) leader
As initially stated, Julian Schieber ended up in Dortmund after that crazy game, even though he only scored six goals in his 49 games for Stuttgart. (This doesn't necessarily mean under GI definitions that he was a bad player. However, a high GI of a Striker correlates strongly with the scoring of a striker.) I highly suspect that the emotional charge of that game and Schieber great two compelling goals made Jürgen Klopp and the Scouting team be a victim of the confirmation Bias. Klopp became a victim of his own world-class (self)-persuasion talent.
Interestingly even Schieber himself analyzed his transfer to Dortmund from a the confirmation bias perspective. In his interview with Transfermarkt.de Schieber answered the question if " this game the decisive factor for your subsequent signing?"
Schieber answered that he “believes that this game on Friday night in front of a sold-out crowd was a decisive factor [for the transfer]. Of course, a club doesn't just watch one game before making a commitment. This 4:4 probably confirmed the opinion of those responsible at the time. Anything else would be a lie."
Since Klopp is quite an emotional manager, it might not be a surprise that he is maybe more susceptible to confirmation bias than other cold-hearted types. But specifically because of his emotional nature he has the world-class ability to persuade a team and organization toward common goals. The confirmation bias works for him in aligning a common social reality. Maybe leaders suffer from a delusion, but they are thus able to create a powerful organization.
And even in the specific case of Schieber, Klopp could find a good story. Klopp told him, even though he did not had his breakthrough in Dortmund he was important. Why? Schieber contributed to Dortmund's Champions league final participation in 2013 because he assisted Dortmund's last-minute win against Malaga in the quarter-finals, where Dortmund was also down till the last minute at 1-0 but reversed the score to 2-1 in extra time.
Weirdly, Schieber remains part of my memories on two occasions, even though he will never be a prominent Dortmund player.
Maybe Schieber was signed because of a fantastic game in order to play a major part in another wild game - I guess that is at least that is how Klopp sees it.
Did it happen again with Darwin?
But while Schieber was quite cheap (‘only ’few million) other signings are more financially risky.
Last year Darwin Nunez also scored two goals against Liverpool (+ 2 offside goals). As you know he also ended up as the top transfer for Liverpool this summer. Criticism already emerged, especially considering the huge transfer fee (ca. 80 million Euro).
Was the confirmation bias operating here again? Maybe. And the Future will tell.
Goalimpact, understood as a risk managment tool, would probably not have advised to sign Darwin, that’s for sure.
But then we would not have written this article ;)
What is Goalimpact?
Goalimpact measures the influence of a player on the goal difference.
It is thus a risk management tool for signing football players.
For more about Goalimpact see here or call us online right away.