I am going to use a controversial example so that I can get
everyone mad enough to comment. But as a
strawman, the concept behind this message is really important to get, so please
don’t let belief-resonance prevent you from seeing it.
We know that one of the strongest predictors of whether an
adult might commit acts of domestic violence is whether they experienced them
as a child. This can be either as a
victim of child abuse or as a witness of spouse abuse. Unfortunately, it seems to be a
self-reinforcing cycle of violence.
We also know that low income families are more likely to
have acts of domestic violence. I am not
going to guess at the reasons, but it is a very unfortunate reality.
We also know that the NFL has a greater representation of
people who grew up in low income families.
They are hardly low-income after a few years as overpaid pro athletes,
but this doesn’t seem to break the cycle of violence I mentioned earlier.
If you control for this chain of factors, NFL players do not
commit domestic violence any more than the general population. It is not due to the violence of pro football. It is not due to the culture of acceptance
that has emerged in the league. It is not the pathetically weak response of
league officials. The origins happened
much earlier.
It is easier to visualize the more direct and concurrent
effects of these other variables. That
makes them jump to mind much easier and stronger. But . . .
Of course, the reverse might be a stronger argument
anyway. A strong culture against
domestic violence could counteract and perhaps break the chain of domestic
violence. Stronger responses from
teammates, coaches, teams, and the NFL central office could do a lot towards
preventing it. Better awareness through
the kinds of programs that are just now being proposed could nip tendencies
right in the bud. So these things all
should be done.
But when looking for the original cause, attributing it to
these things is an illusion caused by representativeness, confirmation,
availability, salience, and other cognitive processes that frequently lead us
wrong when looking for cause-effect relationships.
Now back to my first caveat – I am using this as a visceral,
controversial strawman. I have seen some
evidence that this is the case, but not enough to be sure. On the other hand,
there is also not enough data to say that the league (culture, behavior, or
otherwise) is the cause. My point is
simply that it is easier to jump to the conclusion for proximate causes than it
is to look for precursor variables and root causes.
