Assessing truth of claim requires a second step

More than two decades ago, Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psychologist, argued that people hear a potentially false statement and digest it in two steps.

The first step is that the human mind holds the statement to potentially be true, even if it’s just for a brief moment. Then, a person takes a second step of completing the mental certification — yes, I believe what was said; or, no, I don’t. While the first step is part of normal, everyday thinking and requires no effort, the second step requires a certain amount of time and effort — researching, examining, understanding. Sometimes, according to Gilbert, the second step never takes place.

“When faced with shortages of time, energy, or conclusive evidence, [the human mind] may fail to unaccept the ideas that they involuntarily accept during comprehension,” Gilbert wrote. “When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything.”

And so it is with the inflammatory statements made by Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett, who went on national television last week to publicly say what he was attributed to have said (a big difference, as you will see) in a private meeting with the NFL three months ago — that Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph used a racial slur to spark the aggressive, potentially dangerous behavior that caused Garrett to hit Rudolph over the head with his own helmet in November.

There are those who take the first step and, for however long a period, believe Garrett and accept that what he said potentially could be true. Then there are those who take the second step, take the time to examine the evidence and complete the mental certification — is he telling the truth or merely continuing to not back down from a statement he made to defend himself from league punishment?

Trying to take the second step and examine what has transpired in the months since that ugly scene in Cleveland, here is what can be ascertained to help decipher what is to be believed:

• At its core, Myles Garrett appears to have fabricated a story in what he thought was a private meeting with NFL officials, hoping to offer a defense for his helmet-swinging actions and lessen his punishment. Once his claim leaked and became public, which he didn’t expect, Garrett has been unable to run away from it. And now he continues to embellish what the Steelers believe to be a malicious lie, even adding an adjective to the slur.

• If Rudolph indeed used a racial slur as Garrett has claimed, why did Garrett publicly apologize to Rudolph the day after the game? Who would apologize to a guy who used a racial slur against him? The answer is nobody.

• If Rudolph called Garrett what the Browns defensive end alleges, why didn’t Garrett immediately tell David DeCastro, who was separating the two players, or center Maurkice Pouncey, who attacked Garrett, “Hey, did you hear what he called me? He just called me a [racial slur].” That would have explained his behavior right then and there. But there was none of that, not to a Steelers player, not to any of his Browns teammates when it happened. And that has been corroborated by all parties.

• In his television interview, Garrett insinuated the NFL had even more evidence to support his case that could still come to light. That prompted those adhering to the first-step principle the NFL might be suppressing information and contributing to a cover-up. The league quickly issued a statement that, contrary to Garrett’s claim,

there is no more evidence to be considered.

• Mike Tomlin’s appearance on ESPN — an AfricanAmerican head coach defending his white quarterback against a racism charge by an African-American player — was a significantly powerful moment. Even the detractors among the fan base who like to complain about Tomlin should be proud of what he did. This went beyond a coach merely standing behind his player because that’s what he thinks he is supposed to do.

• It is a little surprising the NFL did not, as a condition of his reinstatement, direct Garrett to cease with any further public discussion of the incident. If he does continue his racial narrative, it might be even more surprising if the NFL fails to take further action, though it is uncertain what that could be. Garrett already has been punished for his actions, and any further discipline would be defended by the players union as a case of double jeopardy. Nonetheless, every time Garrett brings up the incident, it is a bad look for the league.

• Do not discount the possibility Garrett could be sued by Rudolph for defamation, especially if Garrett continues with his public campaign to insist the Steelers quarterback used a racial slur against him. Rudolph’s agent/attorney, Tim Younger, intimated as much last week on Twitter, making a point to note a suit can be filed in California (or any other state for that matter), not just Ohio. Remember this: Before he went on ESPN, Garrett’s claim of a racial slur was not publicly made by him, only attributed to him from his meeting with league officials. Now that he made the charge on national television, the claim is directly attributable to him. That would be a significant difference in a courtroom.

• It wouldn’t be the first time the Steelers were involved in a defamation suit. In 1977, coach Chuck Noll was sued by Oakland Raiders defensive back George Atkinson because Noll referred to him as being part of a “criminal element” in the league. At a trial in Oakland, Noll acknowledged under questioning that some of his own players could be lumped into that category. One of those was cornerback Mel Blount. Unhappy with the designation, Blount sued Noll for $5 million.

Understanding the evidence sometimes takes time. At least it helps to form a more fortified opinion.