So . . . apparently malaise over breaking up with his girlfriend caused the English goalkeeper to let in that crap goal by the U.S.A. I was watching on TV, he was obviously distraught. After all, there has to be a good reason for why it happened, right?
In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. Dude let in a goal. It happens. I have my doubts that it was because he broke up with a girl a month ago. She could have been dancing in a bikini on the sidelines at the time and I would have doubts that she was the cause.
But we have this need, it seems, to ascribe causes to things. The shot was weak, and he didn’t block it, therefore something else must have been going on. I’m sorry, did I miss the part where he never lets any goals in? It happens. Things just happen.
Why can’t we as a species understand that? Why do we always need a reason? There is only one good reason for investigating a cause, and that is to prevent negative events from reoccurring (or conversely, recreating positive events). I know people who, when they get sick, prioritize finding out who made them sick and blaming them. Who exactly does this help? I can see an epidemiologist finding this an area of concern, but not your average Joe. Why not concentrate on doing what you can to feel better rather than finding someone to blame? Unless blaming someone makes you feel better, which would turn conventional medicine on its head, and put Dristan and DayQuil out of business (maybe a new drug that helps you blame could be marketed, something like like FaultRex or Fingerpointing Cold & Sinus).
I read a column recently about the BP oil spill and how energies should be focused on finding a solution to the leak rather than analyzing how it happened and ascribing blame (more on that in another post this week). There’s plenty of time later to analyze. I’ve also heard that people are picketing and protesting at BP stations across the country, which is even funnier (and sad) because the stations aren’t owned by BP, they’re owned by independent small-business owners. You know, people who have absolutely no input into BP policy. But you gotta blame someone, right?
Anyway, I sure hope that they find a new girl for the goalkeeper before the next game. Otherwise, he might let in a goal.
I disagree that "there is only one good reason for investigating a cause..."
ReplyDeleteWhat if the cause helps you to identify the solution? I agree that identifying the person who gave you a cold doesn't help make you feel better, but what if it was something less easily-identified than a cold? It is a simplistic example, but identifying the person who made you sick (or some other cause) could help you to identify what illness you have, making it easier to identify the correct treatment...just ask House!!!
I see your point. My focus was more on blame than causes, and I agree that an expert (e.g. House) would benefit from background information. I would include treatment under the "one good reason to find a cause . . ." bit.
ReplyDelete