“All models are wrong, but some are useful”

Since we’ll be working with models we’ll start with a straightforward definition;

“A model, in the context of science, is a simplified representation of some “real” phenomenon. Scientists supposedly study nature, but in reality much of what they do is construct and study models of nature.” Melanie Mitchell.

In the first post I introduced three important models and now will expand on two of them.

Here are basic pictures of Bernstein’s shifting focus heuristic and Boyd’s Destruction and Creation argument. Both models contain a dynamic asymmetrical goal; a method for approaching the goal, restricting a search, Bernstein’s coordination / Boyd’s analysis and a method for adapting to the inevitable changes that dynamic goals demand, expanding a search, exploration and synthesis respectively.

The goal provides the context for determining the balance between coordination/exploration and analysis/synthesis. It is in constant flux, a state of continual change. Imagine crossing a chasm on an undulating rope. For Bernstein the goal was movement, physical activity. For Boyd it was learning, growth and survival on your own terms.

Bernstein developed his model in response to his degrees of freedom problem. In short, how does the body control movement? With so many nerves, muscles, joints, the DoF, how do we move without getting stuck in a rut or ending in uncontrolled spasms? His answer, by alternating between freezing, (coordinating) and freeing, (exploration) certain DoF we are able to move through a wide variety of environments and manage to reach our goal most of the time.

 

Boyd developed his model in response to the question of how do we learn? How do we construct new concepts to deal with the novelty that the world continually presents to us? By breaking down existing concepts into smaller parts and than reassembling them into new impressions we can create novel ideas. These antagonistic processes combine to help us make sense of a continually evolving environment. We’re able to find “the linear thread swimming in a non-linear sea.”

Both models embody the dynamic interaction between opposed positions that are framed by an underlying goal. Balancing the tension that rises between polar opposites contesting an evolving environment is necessary in order to ‘reach your goal.’ Neither model can exist without these three elements and movement, including thought would be impossible.

So what does this have to do with youth soccer? Listen to the debates, problems, commentaries about the game and they usually seem to revolve around a static or undefined problem and offer single, either-or solutions. For example, “the problem is a lack of technique or it’s the parents.” For solutions “we’ll support development over winning, the individual over the team, dribbling over passing.” With the former you think the future is certain, the problem is clear. With the later you take a position that you have to defend. You get locked into a defensive posture. Both paths lead to stuckness. If there is only one way, one point of view there’s no tension so there’s no need to look beyond the status quo. What worked yesterday, last week, last year will work tomorrow.

But the future is never clear, solutions are never one-dimensional and time waits for no one.

Since we’re dealing with models consider what George Box has to say, “All models are wrong, but some are useful; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.” The models above will prove to be pretty useful and Boyd’s OODA loop even more so.