Mancini 'arrogant and vain'

[Lancet Fluke]

That's... not confirmation bias. Confirmation? Yes. Confirmation bias? No.

Isn't it? I was pleased to see Mancini go and have thought for ages that he was alienating people behind the scenes. Isn't the fact that I wholeheartedly support the leak of the information that supports my beliefs a form of confirmation bias? I'm not a confirmation bias expert so I am happy to be corrected.

No, confirmation bias entails taking packets of incomplete and ambiguous information and making inappropriate leaps to confirm what you want to be true. Suspecting Mancini was alienating people (Was this ever in doubt actually?) and having it confirmed is simply confirmation. In fact, it's the opposite of confirmation bias.

Pyramidology is a very good example of confirmation bias. People find all sorts of hidden meanings in the proportions of the pyramids. They already believe that hidden meaning exists, so they go looking for it and shape any analysis to suit their desired outcome. Conspiracy theorists do this, too.

I think there are plenty of people on here who would dispute that there was never any doubt that Mancini was alienating people!

 

[taconinja]

Isn't it? I was pleased to see Mancini go and have thought for ages that he was alienating people behind the scenes. Isn't the fact that I wholeheartedly support the leak of the information that supports my beliefs a form of confirmation bias? I'm not a confirmation bias expert so I am happy to be corrected.

No, confirmation bias entails taking packets of incomplete and ambiguous information and making inappropriate leaps to confirm what you want to be true. Suspecting Mancini was alienating people (Was this ever in doubt actually?) and having it confirmed is simply confirmation. In fact, it's the opposite of confirmation bias.

Pyramidology is a very good example of confirmation bias. People find all sorts of hidden meanings in the proportions of the pyramids. They already believe that hidden meaning exists, so they go looking for it and shape any analysis to suit their desired outcome. Conspiracy theorists do this, too.

I think there are plenty of people on here who would dispute that there was never any doubt that Mancini was alienating people!

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

No, confirmation bias entails taking packets of incomplete and ambiguous information and making inappropriate leaps to confirm what you want to be true. Suspecting Mancini was alienating people (Was this ever in doubt actually?) and having it confirmed is simply confirmation. In fact, it's the opposite of confirmation bias.

Pyramidology is a very good example of confirmation bias. People find all sorts of hidden meanings in the proportions of the pyramids. They already believe that hidden meaning exists, so they go looking for it and shape any analysis to suit their desired outcome. Conspiracy theorists do this, too.

I think there are plenty of people on here who would dispute that there was never any doubt that Mancini was alienating people!

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

 

[Balti]

I agree to a degree, and agree this could get messy if Mancini's camp have a pop back, particularly at the players.

But I think this whole "shambles" thing is being a bit overplayed, and a lot of it is in the minds of fans. We've sacked our manager. It's never clean but it will be yesterday's news in no time. City's name is not going to be damaged by this. Bizarrely the cup defeat made the PR side of this quite a bit easier for City.

It could have been done more smoothly after the last game, as City planned, but I don't think it would have made much difference to people's perceptions.

I agree to a degree, and agree this could get messy if Mancini's camp have a pop back, particularly at the players.
=======
I guarantee they will have made him sign a non disclosure agreement of some sort

Hope he has signed an agreement - tha'ts why we should keep the leaks to a minimum. No point getting him to sign one and the knives are out at this end

For £7 million or whatever the severance is, there aint no way there is no NDA. Which makes one-sided petty digs seem like exactly that. If Mancini is expected to keep a dignified silence then we should respond in kind. The message is out there. Enough already.

Mancini is a City legend to most of us even if his face did not fit for the new 'holistic' system about to be implemented. Let's accord the guy the dignity that he deserves and in my eyes has always displayed. The respect that he should have been allowed throughout this process......

I hope that one day we (the majority anyway) get the chance to say a proper goodbye and show Bobby our full appreciation for what he did for us.

It is now history. Shame but we move on. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out. It's never boring following City eh lol ?!

 

[BobKowalski]

I think there are plenty of people on here who would dispute that there was never any doubt that Mancini was alienating people!

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Yes

 

[taconinja]

I think there are plenty of people on here who would dispute that there was never any doubt that Mancini was alienating people!

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Yes

Excellent. I'm getting the picture now.

 

[TGR]

Spot on and said with all the brevity I can never manage!

What the hell ... i'll give it one last go, but I swear then I'm done with trying to reason with you. :)

If City had stayed silent the narrative would have been "impatient City sack manager for failure to deliver trophy". This wasn't the case. City have gone about putting out there why this wasn't the case. How can a PR fuck up end up with the club being described as one which had no choice but to sack the manager?

The fact you agree with the previous poster that the club panicked and are now doing damage limitation shows how out of touch you are with what the club actually think. I know for a fact that they are happy and relieved that the Mancini saga is over, and although they aren't happy at the way the FA Cup weekend unfolded, they aren't shedding any tears over their own handling of it. This may seem from the outside to be wrong, but then from the outside the first Mancini knew of his imminent departure from the club was Saturday.

You should know you can't reason with a fool :)

I don't agree the club panicked so probably ought to have read it properly; I do think it should have been handled differently.

The narrative was always going to be "impatient City" whatever was briefed - or it certainly is within the shite I read and hear (press/radio etc).

They let Mancini hoist himself with his own petard which makes continuing to brief the way they have unnecessary.

At this point you are probably saying "struth, I fucking give up!" so I will say thanks for chatting anyway ;)

Strongbow: just because people may have an opion that differs from yours doesn't mean they are fool. It also doesn't mean they are correct. It just means they have a different view or take on things than you do. Nothing more and nothing less. No right. No wrong.
However, I genuinely find it inconceivable that anybody can think that the PR department of the club have come out of this saga smelling of roses!
They haven't. Mancini hasn't. The club hasn't.
The only winners are the press and media who are gorging on a feeding frenzy at our clubs expense.
If you don't agree with this then that's fine. I don't and won't call you a fool.
However, we have by now all made up our minds in which camp we sit and we all have our own fixed view on things - because that's what we choose to believe and that's how it should it be.
It is however, I agree, all becoming a little bit tiresome.

 

[taconinja]

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Yes

I respectfully disagree. ;)

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

Damn. Just when I thought I had a handle on it. :)