The World Cup

If you're a cricket fan, you better had been keeping track of what happened at the World Cup this year. It was one of my favorite world cups since 2003 and I kept a tab on the scores and games for almost all the matches. This was also the first world cup since 2003 where I had a subscription for viewing the world cup. (I had the subscription for 2011 when in India but since the World Cup happened in India, I couldn't really follow much because ... work)

The final game was one of the most riveting and excruciating games of Cricket I have ever witnessed. It was an absolute roller-coaster ride and when the game ended, it just left me wondering why in the name of Merlin's Beard do I even see the game. Like many people, the game's result was a heartbreak to me and I tweeted and furiously discussed with a bunch of friends about how unfortunate the result was. In the interwebs, the majority of the reaction was similar (at least as portrayed by the filter bubble that Twitter presented me).

If you were an English supporter, the following days would've been quite the torrid time. Having had won the world cup, you'd still have been forced to explain the proceedings of the game and the boundary rule.

I realized that I was letting my emotions take over during the first few days after the game and thought I'd let it rest and come back to it when I feel much calmer. I believe I'm now in a calmer state, although I'd be surprised if the rest of the world is as evident from the fact that Kumar Dharmasena is still getting flak from his decision on the final.

Righty. Objectively looking at what happened. This is my stance. I favored a New Zealand victory, because

1. I'm not a huge fan of English cricket - except probably when they play the Ashes. Definitely not after the infamous peeing incident at the Oval.
2. For some reason, the fact that Jofra Archer is enlisted in the team ahead of many players waiting to be selected irks me. He's a serious talent, no doubt and he performed exceptionally well in the world cup but yet I felt a lot of the bureaucracy that accelerated his inclusion into the side was deliberate.
3. New Zealand are just a better side when compares to temperament and fair play. Kane Williamson beautifully embodies the team and I've been a huge fan of him, perhaps even more than Virat Kohli.

With these cognitive lenses in place, my emotions (and many many others') after the game aren't too surprising. But over the last week, I've been thinking hard about my predispositions that made me emotional and these are some questions I asked myself to break me out of my shackles. I seriously encourage everyone who feels wronged to do the same with these questions.

1. What if New Zealand had been in England's position? Would I have felt the same way? Would I have put blamed the ICC or the umpires?
2. What if it wasn't England but India that beat New Zealand this way?
3. What if it was some other teams - say West Indies and Srilanka?

In any of these circumstances, many of us wouldn't have been as flared up as we are today. This shows how our predispositions color our thoughts and emotions and ultimately, decisions. The schadenfreude against England contributed a lot towards most of the fans' angst.

What's the point of this exercise, you ask? :)

This is just an example but the principle applies for almost anything in life. You are frustrated at work or at home or at school because someone wronged you. Or is it your perception that someone has wronged you? Why do you feel that way? Is the perception colored by some predisposition? Is it completely objective? Would you have felt the same way if someone else was wronged?