I love American football and if I could have been anything besides who I am, I would have been a middle linebacker like Dick Butkus, hitting running backs in the hole so hard that their heads pop up like the Robot Boxer’s after a well aimed upper cut.  Despite my affection for the game, I simply cannot understand the appeal of Fantasy Football, but do see the persuasion angle on this little game.

Fantasy Football is based in reality. Real people form leagues then draw from a list of real NFL players to create their own imaginary teams. You score points each week depending upon the actual on-field performance of the players you selected under a complex scoring system defined by your Fantasy League. Thus, you function as an owner, general manager, and coach of your own imaginary NFL team.

What makes all this possible is Counterfactual Thinking. Human nature has the interesting ability to think about reality with thoughts that are counterfactual, literally against the facts. My linebacker alternative life is nothing but Counterfactual Thinking.  While quick and fast, I also stood 5’8″ at 135 pounds.  My best bench press?  160.  It requires no imagination on your part to predict what would have happened to me on professional football field. Steve as Butkus Linebacker is pure Counterfactual.

You see the intricate operation of Counterfactuals in this serious story about Fantasy Football.  The lockout is over and we’ll are ready for some football including the Fantasy.  Here we see the story writer worrying about the impact of DeAngelo Williams resigning for $43 million.  Knowing only that some guy is in line for a $43 million pay day would seem to be all the fantasy that reality can produce, but you’d be wrong.

Sadly, signing a five-year, $43 million extension with the Panthers Wednesday, spurning more fantasy desirable locations Denver and New York, the Little Napoleon’s value may remain in exile . . . Craptastic (I’m absolutely heartbroken. Almost inconsolable. Feel like someone just drank my last Deschutes. Sniff.).

The story writer is unhappy in reality over the counterfactual thinking that Williams, while earning up to a gazillion bucks, will not be the Fantasy Star he should be because he plays on a lousy team that will hurt his production. Certainly some of this is pure jest and irony, but keep one eye blink on Fantasy NFL this season and you’ll see near suicidal Fantasy Owners standing on a bridge railing because DeAngelo had a sure touchdown taken away when a cheap free agent missed his block on that sweep.

The human ability to think thoughts that run counter to the facts and reality is both funny and useful.  Almost all art and science requires counterfactual thinking at some point. Hey, Robert Kennedy lifting GB Shaw gets it with:

Some people see things as they are and ask, Why? I dream things that have never been and say, Why Not!

Persuasion mavens see the play here. When the Other Guy is counterfactual, control the fantasy, then you control the reality!

Like Butkus.

P.S.  If you look closely, you can see me inside #51. Takes some imagination and vision to see me, but I’m there. Really.

P.P.S.  Hey, CIA, consider the persuasion box of Fantasy Football.  Is there a Fantasy Soccer League?  Oh, baby, tell me you’ve already thought of this.

P.P.P.S. Leetle Reeky and I pounded each other on Rock ‘em Sock ‘em when we were kids. Loved the noise when the head popped. Later I got a Batman versus the Penguin version of the game and used it as a prop in my large lecture Mass Media course. I’d dress up the like Caped Crusader and Melanie came in like Vickie Vale with the short tight black dress, blonde hair, and Wayfarer sunglasses while the auditorium PA system pumped out Prince’s Batdance (YouTube). Sounds over the top, but this was my lead in for the unit on the Seduction of the Innocent by Fredric Wertham and the Great Comic Scare in the 1950s.

As we noted before, Red makes you hot whether you are male or female.  Draped in crimson we each become All That to interested onlookers.  Now it turns out that Red makes you hot with monkeys, too, but in a different sense of the word.

Kahn et al. conducted an interesting test with free range Rhesus macaques living the monkey vita loca in Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico.  The same man and woman approached a single male monkey and offered an apple slice.  The people varied the color of the outfit they wore between Red, Blue, and Green.  They then noted which apple slice the monkey took – from the person wearing Red, Blue, or Green.  Here’s a visual demonstration.

The top 3 pictures demonstrate the procedure and that color bar chart on the bottom shows the monkey choices.  Note that when either the man or the woman was wearing red, the monkey was less likely to take the apple (about a 30/70 effect or a near Large Windowpane).  And see on the last color bar a statistical tie between Blue and Green.  Here’s what the researchers conclude.

In summary, when given the opportunity to steal food from two human experimenters, male macaques consistently avoided the experimenter wearing red, regardless of the sex of that experimenter. Our study provides the first experimental evidence that red may be a signal of dominance in a free-ranging nonhuman primate species. The observation that monkeys avoid the color red in competitive situations bolsters the argument that human participants in combat sports are influenced by evolved psychological predispositions to react submissively to opponents wearing red uniforms (Hill & Barton, 2005).

Hey, let’s follow up on that Hill and Barton citation (pdf).  They conducted an interesting Found Experiment involving the impact of Red on victory in combat Olympic sports.  See, in the 2004 Athens Olympics all athletes competing in the combat sports (boxing, wrestling freestyle and Greco-Roman, tae kwon do) were randomly assigned to wear either Red or Blue markers on their clothing.  Across all bouts, competitors wearing Red were more likely to win (Chi-Square[1] = 4.19, p < 0.04, w = .10, a Small Windowpane 45/55).  The effect was most pronounced in contests of equal skill.  Here Hill and Barton found a nearly 35/65 effect (Chi-Square[1] = 6.07, p < 0.014).

So Red Hot for romance or for dominance, right?  Maybe not and now we get to the fun part of the scientific drama.  Rowe, Harris, and Roberts pursued (pdf) the Hill and Barton approach with another Found Experiment from the Olympics.  They returned to the 2004 Olympics, but looked at the judo competition.  Again, competitors were randomly assigned to wear one of two colors, Blue or White.  Rowe et al. found a Small Windowpane effect, about 40/60, that favored Blue over White.  Thus, we also have a Blue Dominance effect to go with our Red Romantic and Dominance effect.

Now, let’s go old school.  In 1988 Frank and Gilovich published a series of studies that investigated the Black effect on sports aggression.  Through a variety of Found Experiments along with two lab experiments, Frank and Gilovich found a negative Black uniform effect.  Here’s how they put it.

In particular, we examined whether the teams with black uniforms in two professional “contact” sports tend to be unusually aggressive, as measured by how frequently they are penalized. As predicted, teams with black uniforms in the NFL and the NHL were penalized significantly more often during the last 17 years than their rivals in nonblack uniforms. Furthermore, those teams that switched from nonblack to black uniforms during this time period experienced an immediate and dramatic increase in penalties. The results of our two laboratory experiments indicate that the effect of wearing black uniforms on a team’s history of penalties may be attributable to two distinct processes. Study 3 demonstrated that players in black uniforms are judged more harshly than those in white uniforms by nonpartisan judges and thus are more likely to be penalized for actions that would be overlooked if performed by members of another team. In Study 4, subjects wearing black uniforms were more inclined than their white-uniformed counterparts to seek out opportunities for aggressive competition, providing some initial support for the idea that football and hockey players who wear black uniforms actually play more aggressively than their rivals.

So, sports fans and persuasion mavens, what’s the effect of color on behavior?  Red seems good for romance and dominance unless you can wear Blue for judo, but if you mean aggression instead of dominance then you wear Black.  Or something like that.

Here’s the simplest take.

There Are No Laws of Persuasion.

Virtually all men and some women believe at some time that through skilled performance you can reliably pickup a partner for sex.  Please realize that “skilled performance” means persuasion – using communication to change the way a freely choosing person thinks, feels, or acts, in this case that chick at the end of the bar.  Not good looks, not free spending, not VIP access, just persuasion skill and you’ve got the pickup.

Through the magic of the Internet, all things become possible because you can find multiple sources that claim the same thing.  Here’s a Salon article.  Here’s a Wikipedia.  And here’s an author’s website.  They all say the same thing.  Through persuasion skill you can reliably pickup a partner, especially that chick at the end of the bar.

In understanding this truth or near truth or likelihood or yeah, I’ll bet they know, consider this Rule.

There Are No Laws of Persuasion and If There Were Why Would Anyone Tell You?

The Pickup Persuaders certainly don’t call their approach Lawful, but we already know They are good at it, so it’s pretty close to a Law.  Except if this near Law was true, what else would be true?

1.  There’d be no chicks for picking up.  Chicks are a market that a lot of guys would like to corner so if there was anything remotely approaching a Law out there with Pickup Persuaders, guys would know it, read it, practice it, and master it.  Chicks would not be available anytime day or night.

2.  Guys would be broke.  Good grief, look at how much money guys pay on hair replacement, body shampoo, and little blue pills.  You think if there’s a Pickup Persuader near Law, guys wouldn’t pay an arm and a whatever to get it?

3.  The Pickup Persuaders who discovered this near Law would be hanging with the Queen of Tomorrow.  They’d party with that Russian mogul who own the Nets.  They’d plan with Steve Jobs about the next iGizmo.  Good grief, most of the nerdy guys in Silicon Valley would be their BFFs.  Hey, they might even be advising President Obama after that midterm shellacking.

4.  Chicks would be countering.  Women would see this happening to their friends and to themselves, feel guilty and ashamed, and then get angry.  This time, baby, they’d get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

So, just thinking through a persuasion Rule in this application the idea of the persuasive pickup is limp.

But, Steve.  Some guys make it happen.  I’ve seen it.  How do you explain them?

Magnetics, baby.  Magnetics and the Law of Large Numbers.

Consider the guy who is the Pickup Artist.  He even had his own TV series.  Okay, cable.  Okay, okay, VH-1.  Okay, okay, okay two seasons with a few episodes.  But still.

Look at his picture.

He’s not changing any chick in his direction; he’s attracting those who are attracted to him.  His style is a sign, not a persuasive message.  His appearance is one of those Universal Travel Icons like for bathrooms, left turns, and slippery when wet.  He is Nuke Laloosh throwing a high inside fastball to announce his presence with authority.

And, then, and here’s the science part, he applies the Law of Large Numbers.  Ask a lot and you’ll get a little.  Guaranteed.

Magnetics is not persuasion.

Buying all the lottery tickets is not persuasion.

Pickup Persuasion is not persuasion.

Unless you’re selling a book, a TV series, or a pill.  Then we can talk about persuasion.

So, you’re watching the Game and it’s 4th and 1.  What will your homies do?  Punt or go for it?  Hey, you’re a fan, you know what the coach will do, but you can’t prove it to anyone except for shooting your mouth off into space.

But, what if you had a betting app on your iGizmo that offered you instant odds on Punt or Go For It, right Now!  Tap the amount, tap the bet, watch the play, and get your consequence in real time with the real play.

Talk about a persuasion engine!  Look at this Cantor Gaming thing.

Consider the TACTs.  The idea of a handheld gaming device is like that organ donor card at the DMV – a physical thing that combines the persuasion play with the TACT at the point of impulse.  The gaming device is the simple easy behavior – a physical device that is like our “1% or Less” milk campaign TACT that only asked people to move their outstretched hand a few inches farther along the counter.

Consider the mental state of the receivers, the WATTage.  All those distractors during a game.  The time constraints of quick betting and not against a constant game like roulette or blackjack where the reality of the play varies only slightly, but a football or baseball or basketball game where the dynamics of time, score, and myriad other factors instantly alter importance, risk, and reward in massive ways.

Consider the Args and Cues.  That device contains both.  If you are a serious gambler who thinks, this device allows you to do things you’d like to do, but never could before.  You can game constantly like you’re playing a computer shooter game.  It works intuitively.  It fits your hand and pocket.  It’s convenient to carry.  If you are a serious gambler who ambles along the Periperhal Route, baby, this device is Easy, Fun, and Popular!  The Cantor gaming box is all things to all gamblers.

Cantor-Fitzgerald is currently piloting this idea in casinos, but hopes to have it operational for, get this, March Madness.  If all goes according to plan, you’ll be able to bet not on winners and losers, but on specific plays during specific games just like my 4th and 1 football example.  (Read about this at WSJ, NYT, or Yahoo Sports.)

Of course I’m all wrong about this, but gamblers don’t beat the house.  Maybe you can win when you’re betting against your idiot neighbor, but when Cantor-Fitzgerald controls the shoe, gamblers will never win more than the house.  And, if you think about the situation from a WATTage point of view, you realize why the house will always do a lot better than the gamblers.

When folks are watching sports, they are not Objective High WATT processors of probability.  They are highly activated, emotional, and distracted.  Even when they are good at calculating probabilities, that ability is weakened by all those negative willingness factors – emotion, loyalty, excitement.  And, the nature of the bet requires extremely fast decision making based on probabilities involving dozens of random variables.  This Cantor-Fitzgerald persuasion engine will grab Low WATT sports fans, either unable or unwilling to do the probability calculus, and compress them into Instant Attitude with 4th and 1, hot hand bets, who gets the next rebound, and on and on.

A Peitho Award nomination for Cantor Gaming!  Does the Babe come with the device?

P.S.  The next money-making app would be SportStat 1.0 that would provide statistical and maven evidence in real time for all the Cantor Gaming wagers.  Or else LoanShark 1.0 will be the next app.  What’s your bet?

P.P.S.  Why not something like this with weather?  As I write this post on February 1, 2011, America awaits the Greatest Snowstorm Ever or something close to it.  Why not give odds on weather outcomes?  More people know more about the weather than sports.  Weather Odds would attract a stupendous audience and lot of them believe there is a science of weather that they could use to make money.

Hey, you Climate Change Affirmers, why not prove your point with this?  If your science is that good, you should become the House on this and rake in the dough on all those idiot Climate Change Deniers.  Think how much money you’d make and how easy it would be and how gratifying it would be to fleece those Know Nothings?  I mean, jeepers, the science of weather and climate change is better than the science of probability and gambling, isn’t it?  What, you don’t want to make that bet?

There’s a simple persuasion reason why Jay Cutler, quarterback for the Chicago Bears, is taking so much criticism for sitting out the second half of the NFC championship game against the Green Bay Packers.  Failed Attributional Search.

No one on the coaching or training staff was shown taking Cutler’s helmet away from him, followed by an angry Cutler fighting for his hat and his position, only to be pulled gently back by his team mates.  Everyone watching the game, whether in the stands or on a screen, saw only Cutler standing, walking, sitting, moving under his own steam all through the second half looking for all the world like he was fit as a fiddle and loaded for Bear, or for Packer, in this instance.

Cutler’s absence from the game and behavior on the sideline left viewers making an attributional search for this puzzling outcome.  When players are too badly injured to play during a game, there is almost always the scene where coaches and trainers are around the player, looking like they are doing triage in M*A*S*H.  The Bears organization failed to do this and in so doing failed Cutler and fans.  The only persuasion cues observers had came only from Cutler and he looked okay enough.

If coaches or trainers had provided the proper and required persuasion performance – take his helmet, assist him off the field, lay him on a sideline table and work his knee – this conversation wouldn’t even have started.

Jeepers, even a middle school coach knows this.