I am profoundly influenced by Daniel Kahneman to the extent that my latest book (out soon!) has "Thinking Fast and Slow" right there in the title.
Confirmation bias is a thing and I believe it works insideiously in ways people don't like to admit. You can see it most blantantly in the world of wrestling reviews if you go back to Scott Keith. If he likes the two guys more than likely he's dropping snowflakes on the match, if he sees one of the guys is fat or doesn't like the worker, he's dropping DUD on it and using his review to crap on the guys in question.
No one here is as bad as that, but I do think it works in mysterious ways. I was lambasted for comparing Baron Mikel Scicluna, the master of the "Shakespeare" foreign object play, to Jerry Lawler. Although if you break it down Scicluna and Lawler are doing the same stuff there. Only one narrative says Scicluna sucks and so everything he does sucks and another says Lawler rules and everything he does rules.
I am very aware of these narratives. In my daily work I study macro trends in criticism. Wrestling criticism is not as developed as literary criticism, but I see those certain things play out sometimes in ways that are obscured or hidden.
I believe that Dory could have worked the exact same headscissor sequence Murdoch did and Will would have said it was boring. I could be wrong, but it's what I believe.
Will has also introduced me and many other people to some great wrestling, he's right about that. He's right about Brody too. I don't always agree with him on everything and I do believe that he plays favourites in his reviews at times.