Technology and limits of rationality
Education, sport, Daisy Christodoulou and VAR. Education: Naomi Fisher podcast. Life, Art: Ted Lasso, drama structure and positive role models. Climate. Fertility. IN Defence of home education.
Education, sport, podcast: Daisy Christodoulou
Education: Naomi Fisher podcast
Life, Art: Ted Lasso, drama structure and positive male role models
Theatre: My Death Show, thanks
Climate: An activist becomes more lukewarm
Meet-up: UnConference for Emergent Winners and Friends
Health: Debates on falling fertility
Education: In defense of UK home Education (Catherine Oliver)
I had an excellent chat with Daisy Christodoulou on VAR (video assisting referee) and football, as well as on education.
At the high level, I thought the ideas about (1) the limits of rationality and (2) what makes a game better or fairer - were intriguing.
The summary arguments on rationality would be:
One of the challenges with implementing a highly rational, precise, and rule-based system—especially one that can be applied by a computer—is that it often misses nuances. These systems can feel clinical, stripping away the qualities that give decisions their human context and texture. A good example of this is the application of Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology in football, particularly with decisions like handballs.
VAR applies a cut-and-dried, "letter of the law" approach. For example, if the ball touches a player's hand, it’s often immediately deemed a foul, regardless of intent. This removes human judgment from the equation, but it has opened a Pandora's box of problems. Over the past five years, there has been significant backtracking and rewriting of the rules to deal with the confusion and controversy that VAR has unleashed.
This situation highlights the limits of a purely rational approach. While rationalism aims for consistency and clarity, it often struggles with the messy realities of human judgment. At the same time, a more impressionistic, "spirit of the law" approach—where discretion and common sense come into play—isn’t without its flaws. These systems can lead to inconsistency, bias, and outcomes that are hard to scale or replicate.
In my book, I argue that much of life involves trade-offs. Instead of searching for perfection, we need to balance competing priorities. For example, evolutionary biology demonstrates how trade-offs are intrinsic to progress. An eagle’s incredible long-distance vision comes at the expense of color perception. Similarly, in football, VAR represents an attempt to optimize accuracy, but the results suggest that accuracy alone is not enough.
Before VAR, fans, players, and managers called for "more right decisions." VAR became a system designed to maximize accuracy. But once it was implemented, people quickly realized they cared about other things too—such as simplicity and the fluidity of the game. Rio Ferdinand expressed this sentiment early on, saying that simplicity is crucial; spending five minutes on a single decision undermines one of football’s core appeals—its accessibility.
This realization highlights the need to think about multiple factors—accuracy, simplicity, consistency, discretion—and to balance them effectively. Optimization isn’t about maximizing one value; it’s about finding the right mix.
A useful analogy comes from racehorse breeding. Over generations, racehorses have been bred for speed, leading to lighter bone density. While this optimization makes them faster, it also makes their bones more fragile, pushing them closer to a breaking point. This is the danger of over-optimization: you end up with a system so fragile that it collapses under its own weight.
The lesson from VAR is clear: in our pursuit of greater accuracy, we’ve lost other essential aspects of the game. The result? The worst of both worlds—a system that doesn’t deliver on its promise of accuracy and undermines other values like simplicity and consistency.
What we need instead is a balanced approach that finds the sweet spot among all the values we care about. Football, like any system, shouldn’t break under the weight of its own optimization. The goal is to strike a balance—a system robust enough to maintain its integrity without sacrificing what makes it special.
I think this lesson may come into many systems where human judgement is needed.
We went on to chat about other games. What I found interesting was that the technology seems to have improved other games like cricket and tennis. The conclusion from this is that fans and players can tell this after some time - and they can judge it - but was hard to know the unintended consequences before time.
The arguments are:
In cricket, the introduction of Hawk-Eye technology to judge LBW (leg before wicket) decisions has had a significant impact, particularly benefiting spinners who now receive more LBW calls. What’s interesting is that, despite this substantial change, there have been fewer complaints. This ties into your earlier point about the "spirit of the law." While the technology in both cricket and football has led to unintended consequences—outcomes that were not the intention of those who implemented it—the reactions have been very different.
In cricket, people have largely accepted the changes because they feel the technology has improved the game. By contrast, in football, there’s been considerable backlash because many feel it has made the game worse. Across all sports, including cricket and football, there’s a shared desire to see skill rewarded.
With more LBW decisions being given, Hawk-Eye has rewarded the skill of spinners in a way that feels fair and consistent. It has also addressed tactics used by batsmen to exploit loopholes, such as striding down the pitch with their pad to avoid being given out LBW—something that didn’t feel fair. In this case, the technology has aligned with the expectations of fans by enhancing the fairness and supporting the skill that makes the game engaging.
In football, however, the opposite has occurred. As I note in the book, Roy Hodgson observed that highly skillful moments—ones that align with the traditions and spirit of the game—are now being ruled out for minuscule infringements. This undermines the flow and enjoyment of the game.
Scoring a goal in football is already challenging, which is arguably one of the factors contributing to the sport’s popularity. That delicate balance—where goals are hard to score but not excessively so—was likely already in a good place. By introducing VAR, the unintended consequence has been to make it even harder to score, with skillful moments often negated by marginal offside decisions.
Ultimately, while technology has enhanced cricket by rewarding skill and fairness, it has disrupted football by introducing a rigidity that many believe detracts from the game. The unintended consequences in football have been negative, diverging from what fans and players value most.
On Education Daisy is a big proponent on knowledge rich curriculums (whether self-directed or school directed, she argues foundations need to be full of knowledge).
She thinks the idea that you “look it up” on Wiki or ChatGPT is a myth on how education and learning works. The arguments are:
The idea that "you can always just look it up" has become pervasive, and it goes beyond education. It reflects a broader cultural assumption—that now, with a smartphone in every pocket, we no longer need to know anything. The latest iteration of this mindset is not just having Google at our fingertips but also tools like ChatGPT.
Instead of simply Googling something, people now say, "We can just ChatGPT it." However, as I explain in the book, this isn’t purely a technology issue. It’s also about the limitations of our cognitive architecture. Humans have a very limited working memory that can only process a certain number of new items at any given time.
No matter how much information Google or ChatGPT makes available—no matter how easily it can be accessed—it all has to pass through the narrow "pipe" of our working memory. To make sense of this information, you still need a foundation of knowledge stored in your long-term memory.
This leads to an interesting paradox: in order to understand something you find on Google—or even to construct an effective search query—you already need a substantial amount of knowledge in your long-term memory. Neither Google nor ChatGPT is the most effective tool for acquiring foundational knowledge. Instead, they are most useful when paired with an existing base of knowledge.
This underscores an important point about education: to truly gain new knowledge, you need to have some prior knowledge as a starting point. You can’t simply send students off on independent inquiries and expect them to learn everything they need from Google or ChatGPT alone.
In recent years, more people have started to recognize this problem. We’re beginning to see a shift in understanding that while these tools are powerful, they are no substitute for the foundational knowledge necessary to use them effectively.
It was an excellent chat, you can read, watch or listen here. Contents below.
Problems with VAR in Football
Comparing VAR Across Different Sports
Impact of VAR on the Spirit of the Game
Broader Implications of VAR and Rationalism
Potential Reforms in Education
Path Dependency in Education Systems
Emphasis on Knowledge in Education
The Myth of "Just Look It Up"
Historical Perspectives on Self-Education
Balancing Educational Trade-offs
The Decline of English Literature Studies
I watched some Ted Lasso over the holiday season.
Ted Lasso follows an optimistic American football coach, Ted Lasso, who is unexpectedly hired to manage a struggling English soccer team, AFC Richmond, despite having no experience with the sport. While initially seen as a joke by the team's owner, Rebecca, who aims to sabotage the club as revenge against her ex-husband, Ted’s kindness, resilience, and unorthodox leadership style gradually win over the players and staff.
There were two over arching ideas in Ted Lasso I found interesting. One was around (i) signalling on what a positive male role model would be and (ii) was the use of 5 act dramaturgical structures in many parts of the shows I watched.
On structure a summary of a 5 act structure might be:
Exposition/Setup: Each episode typically begins by establishing the current stakes or setting up the episode’s main conflict. This often involves Ted’s interactions with the team, Rebecca, or individual players, grounding the episode in its central theme.
Rising Action: As the characters face challenges or unexpected events, complications arise. For instance, conflicts might emerge between team members, personal relationships, or broader issues like dealing with a rival team or the press.
Climax: The pivotal moment or turning point in the episode often occurs when a major decision is made, or an emotional revelation comes to light. This could be during a game, a heartfelt conversation, or a comedic breakthrough that ties into the episode’s theme.
Falling Action: Following the climax, the consequences of the characters' choices unfold. This often includes humorous or poignant moments that reflect on the emotional impact of the climax.
Resolution: Most episodes conclude on a hopeful or reflective note, even if all the conflicts aren’t fully resolved. Ted’s optimism and the overarching themes of personal growth and teamwork often bring closure or a sense of progress, setting the stage for future developments.
Lasso had reasonably lengthy “falling actions” for many characters across the shows. There was a time especially in Hollywood movies where falling actions were cut or given only a very small amount of screen time.
It struck me that watchers becoming really invested in the characters over several hours or more means that falling actions feel very satisfying.
This is somewhat counter to the idea of "get in late, get out early" - a storytelling principle often attributed to screenwriting and dramatic writing, particularly associated with the works and teachings of David Mamet, among others. The concept encourages writers to begin scenes as close as possible to the central action or conflict and to exit before the resolution becomes overly drawn out, ensuring each scene remains sharp, impactful, and engaging.
In practice, get in late, get out early…. might mean:
Begin with Conflict: Introduce scenes at the moment something critical or interesting is already underway. Skip unnecessary lead-ins, like characters entering a room or exchanging pleasantries, unless they serve a purpose.
Leave the Audience Wanting More: Exit a scene before fully resolving the tension, allowing the audience to stay curious and engaged with what comes next.
I think it’s good that both types of structure can make compelling stories today.
On male role models, you could argue:
Ted Lasso deliberately emphasizes positive male role models by showcasing men who embrace vulnerability, emotional intelligence, and personal growth. The show subverts traditional depictions of masculinity that often lean toward dominance:
Empathy and Vulnerability: Ted himself embodies kindness and openness, consistently encouraging those around him to express their feelings. For instance, his unwavering support for Jamie Tartt's emotional growth and his acknowledgment of his own mental health struggles highlight the strength in vulnerability.
Mentorship and Support: Characters like Roy Kent and Sam Obisanya exemplify mentorship and support rather than competition or aggression. Roy, despite his gruff demeanor, becomes a nurturing figure for younger players like Jamie.
Accountability Without Aggression: The show demonstrates that men can hold each other accountable without resorting to anger or aggression. This is evident in Ted's coaching style, which focuses on constructive criticism and fostering trust, rather than fear or humiliation.
Reconciliation and Growth: Characters like Jamie and Nate show that redemption and growth are integral to positive masculinity. Jamie's journey from an arrogant star to a supportive teammate, and Ted's eventual forgiveness of Nate, exemplify how empathy and understanding can lead to personal and relational transformation.
Team over individual. Ted Lasso emphasizes the team (and forgiveness). Ted’s approach to leadership rejects the “win-at-all-costs” mentality, prioritizing personal well-being over professional success. The players learn that respect and teamwork are more valuable than dominance or bravado.
This ends with Ted wanting to change the name of the book written in the show from the Ted Lasso Way - emphasising the individual - to a team based title.
While some might find these ideas too heavily embodied in the show. I didn’t find it too heavy handed. So I thought that was interesting. It would be interesting as counter point to have a show which leaned into liberty and freedom (and free markets?) ideas as valuable. I haven’t seen it but I can sense eg Silicon Valley is not that show. But team + empathy + freedom + forgiveness + growth would be interesting to me.
Thanks to everyone who came to see my Death Show. I got great feedback and everyone seemed to really enjoy it (though they would say that). I do think I need to practice holding a silence and letting a build up run into some of the jokes I had in the show, but it was great to see some of you.
My next event will be an UnConference for Emergent Ventures winners + Friends. If you think this might be you (as a friend who might benefit from an EV UnConference meet-up) let me know and will send an invite. Brief details:
Date: Sat 26 April, 2025
Time: 9am for 10am - 5pm then also dinner.
Venue: Central London
What is an UnConference?
Unlike traditional conferences with pre-set agendas and passive listeners, an UnConference invites all attendees to participate actively.
Everyone is encouraged to propose topics, lead discussions, and contribute to conversations in a meaningful way.
While a conventional conference treats attendees like a passive audience to be entertained by the organizers, the UnConference format gives everyone a say by building something together.
I found this personal essay from Mike Hulme insightful. He is a climate scientist and moves from being in the activist camp in 80s/90s/2000s into someone who know now thinks that geopolitics is the major driving force. In terms of climate tribes, it’s a form of “luke warmer” still I found his views insightful even as I still sit unsure of them.
“In the contest between geopolitics and sustainable climate policies, the former takes precedence.”
…The crucial period which shaped my own (mis-)reading of the prospective power and salience of climate change in the twenty-first century—and many other people’s mis-reading; I was not alone in this—was the ten years between 1985 and 1995, now more than a third of a century ago. This period marked the apogee of optimistic thinking about “a new world order”—in the words of George Bush senior—and about “the end of history”—in the words of Francis Fukuyama. It was marked by the rise of market globalization, the triumph of liberal democracy over state-sponsored communism, and the blithe promise of a world energy transition. In short, this optimism was fueled by the rise of globalism; thinking strategically about climate change was caught-up in this zeitgeist….
….Since first immersing myself in the topic in the 1980s, and subsequently being part of the scientific and public story of climate change in the 1990s and 2000s[4], I was easily convinced that the growing human influence on the world’s climate would be a reality that all nations would increasingly need to confront, a reality to which their interests would necessarily be subservient and that would be decisive for shaping their development pathways. For more than half of these 40 or so years, it seemed to me self-evident that relations between nations would forcibly be re-shaped by the exigencies of a changing climate.
But now, in the mid-2020s, I can see that I got this the wrong way round. And I can also see why this was so. Rather than geopolitics having to bend to the realities of a changing climate, the opposite has happened. The unyielding force of political realism—the pursuit of the changing and unpredictable interests of nations and great powers—means that the framing, significance, and responses to climate change need continually to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities. Except that too often they haven’t. Whilst the world’s climate has undoubtedly changed over these 40 years, the geopolitics, demography, and culture of the world has changed even more.[5] Too often the language, rhetoric, and campaigning around climate change remains wedded to a world that no longer exists. …
Food for thought, his blog here.
Lyman Stone has views on fertility. He argues:
Good economic growth is connected with higher, not lower fertility
Higher child mortality is associated with higher fertility
Higher fertility preferences are associated with higher fertility
Life expectancy, population density, and irreligion don’t seem like persuasive candidates for low fertility
And:
The basic synopsis of why people (stopped) wanting babies is:
Western countries (explicitly and implicitly) promoted their idiosyncratic small-family-size norms. These norms were not necessarily actually that appealing in and of themselves at first, and were usually resisted (India still has arranged marriages today!). But as Western countries opened up an increasingly yawning gap between themselves and the rest of the world in terms of productive capacity and standard of living, the rest of the world didn’t feel very good about it. They were aware (thanks to improved transportation, communications, media, trade, etc) of the Western advantage, and awareness created a not very nice feeling that they weren’t doing okay.
Often this not-very-nice-feeling came from war. Countries would lose a war against a colonial or imperial power, and it would be a wakeup call about how massively dominant Europe had become. But sometimes it came without war. Regardless, some forward-looking non-Western elites would sometimes try to “Westernize” or “modernize” their communities to compete more. Prototypical cases would be individuals like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, or Sequoyah for the Cherokee.
Regardless of how it happened, two facts have become more and more true: 1) many people started to feel not good about how far “behind” how “undeveloped” their communities were and 2) it was much easier to adopt some pieces of Western culture (like small family size) than others (like inclusive political institutions, independent police forces, rule of law, democracy, or property rights). Now, I do have to note: this was partly because Western states often sabotaged the actually-useful stuff. Where the British ruled directly (Singapore, for example, or Hong Kong) they did create British institutions. But where they ruled very indirectly (Sierra Leone, for example, or Nigeria) they often actively propped up ineffective, divisive, and extractive institutions. Most colonial empires governed most of their territories with very small colonial elites, and relied on indirect control by clientelized local extractive elites. As a result, colonialism often prevented the emergence of some useful “Western” institutions.
His substack on it here. A complex set of insights worth pondering.
Catherine Oliver makes a defence of a recent opinion piece on UK home education.
Emma’s piece about homeschooling (her word—in the UK the legal term is home education) fell far below the standards expected from The Times. This is no surprise because pretty much all commentary about home education is of a similarly low standard. I am open to the idea that we need a debate about home education in the UK, but the reason parents often bristle whenever the subject is raised is that the tone of the debate is generally offensive, alarming, and woefully ill-informed.
She also highlights flaws in proposed UK legislation.
My principal concern is that the register is being put forth as a solution to a problem which has not been properly considered and defined.
The desire for a register stems from concerns about children unknown to the state, who may be unsafe and/or receiving an unsatisfactory education. Recently the case of Sara Sharif has been used as evidence that home educated children are unsafe. There are also concerns about high rates of persistent absence, and about illegal faith schools.
But it is not clear how a register of home educated children will address any of these serious concerns…
See here letter here, and UK readers you can add your own.
Lastly, thanks to all those who have come to the substack via Naomi Fisher. This is podcast I did with Naomi a while ago.
Naomi Fisher is a clinical psychologist. She has written a book: Changing Our Minds: How children can take control of their own learning. The work is an excellent look at self-directed education also known in the UK as home education, or in the US as home school or unschooling.
Thanks for reading.