Monthly Archives: July 2010

The 8 to 1 Rule

Posted on by
3

The 8 to 1 rule is a rule of thumb.

I first heard this rule from marketer Mike Long.

The 8 to 1 Rule: A task will be roughly 8 times quicker then 2nd or 3rd time you have done it compared with the first time.

Why the 8 to 1 rule is important

Our minds work in a linear fashion. So if it takes us 5 hours to do something the first time, our mind will tell us that it will take us 5 hours every time we want to carry out that task.

In reality, the second time we do something it is much easier. In other words, we get the hang of it after the 2nd or 3rd time.

It is important to keep the 8 to 1 rule at the forefront of our minds so as to prevent ourselves from becoming overwhelmed with learning new skills.

Regards

-Simon

The Fallacy Of The Inverse

Posted on by
2

I first heard of the fallacy of the inverse from a former Magic the Gathering player David Mills.

The fallacy of the inverse describes certain instances where our minds predictably screws up. It is a flaw in logic that our mind will perceive as sound.

In order to avoid confusion I will first use a few examples before fully describing the fallacy of the inverse.

Example 1

Lets say we have a student. The student wants to achieve good grades. The student sets a goal of a 95% final grade for a particular subject. The student will reason in their mind that if they achieve a final grade of 95% or more, they will be happy. This is most likely true.

Unfortunately for the student they will believe that if they do not achieve a score of 95% or more, they will be unhappy. This is not true, it is flawed thinking.

We will look at this in a slightly more mathematical sense.

P= 95% grade or more.

Q= happiness.

→ (implies)

Since we know that the student will be happy with a grade of 95% or more…

P → Q

[95% or higher implies happiness]

If we take the inverse.

Not P → Not Q

[Not getting 95% or higher implies unhappiness]

This is a false assumption. There may be other reasons why that student could be happy. It is possible they will be sad, but it isn’t for sure. They may have won the lottery, a family member may have recovered from an illness, etc. They may even be happy if they scored 90%.

Unfortunately, the fallacy of the inverse may stop a lot of people from setting worthy goals, because those people fear negative emotions if those goals are not entirely met.

Example 2

If it rains, the sidewalk will get wet. This will always be true Right now, as I type this it is raining heavily, and the sidewalk outside my house is definitely wet.

Lets again look at this mathematically.

P= Rain

Q= sidewalk is wet

→ [implies]

P → Q. This is true.

The fallacy of the inverse states that if it does not rain then the sidewalk will not be wet. This is not true (a fallacy).

Mathematically the fallacy of the inverse states:

Not P → Not Q

Some may be wondering why this is a false assumption.

Simple.

There are other reasons why the sidewalk may be wet, someone may be watering their garden, there may be a water fight, someone might be washing their car near the sidewalk, etc. There are many reasons why the sidewalk might be wet without it raining.

Conclusion

We can now describe the fallacy of the inverse.

The fallacy of the inverse states that if a first even implies a second event, then the opposite of the first even occurring will cause the opposite of the second even occurring. You must be careful of this flawed thinking and actively train your mind to oppose it.

Ultimately, the fallacy of the inverse is our minds confusing the notion of cause and effect. I will be writing about cause and effect later on.

Regards

-Simon

The Video Referee In The World Cup

Posted on by
Reply

There has been much debate regarding the use of video technology in soccer. The recent world cup has brought about further calls for the use of video technology.

The controversy mainly surrounds 2 incidents. One was England’s disallowed goal. The other was Argentina’s unjustified goal. These both happened on the same day.

England’s (disallowed) goal was scored by Frank Lampard. The shot hit the crossbar, then went in, then bounced out because of backspin on the ball.

Argentina’s goal that shouldn’t have been was scored by Carlos Tevez who was in an offside position when receiving a headed assist from Lionel Messi.

I will now comment on these 2 goals and the issues surrounding them.

Lampard’s Goal

This was a goal, but neither the linesman nor the referee can be blamed for not seeing that it had. The linesman must stay in line with the 2nd last defender until a ball is kicked by an attacking player. He must then quickly look at the 2nd last defender to see if there are any offside attacking players (this is my experience from when I used to officiate club games).

My point is, even if the linesman was faster than (current fastest man) Usain Bolt, he would not have had enough time to see whether or not the ball had crossed the line.

On the other hand, both the linesman and the referee would have been saved a lot of grief had one they been allowed to refer the decision.

Tevez’s ‘goal’

This is one decision the linesman should have correctly made. He was in line with the second last defender and had ample time to see whether or not there was an offside player. Further adding to my annoyance was the fact that the referee of this game was the same referee who wrongly sent Australian Harry Kewell off against Ghana (more on that later).

In this situation, a replay of the incident was shown on the screen, causing the Mexican players to confront the linesman. Once the incident was replayed on the big screen, there was zero chance of it being rectified. Referees are not allowed to use video evidence in making refereeing decisions. Once the ‘goal’ had been shown on the big screen the referee had to stand by his original wrong decision. If it hadn’t been shown, he would have had until the restart to consult the linesman and reverse decision.

Again, the use of the video referee or some sort of challenge system (like the ones used in cricket or tennis) would have eliminated this controversy altogether.

Use of video technology to stamp out diving

Diving is a huge problem in this sport. It ensures that only the whimpiest of nations ever succeed at this sport. Diving could be eliminated straight away with the use of video technology. The method is simple. After a game, find footage of all those who dived, and hand them one match bans. This would not interrupt the flow of the game (one argument against the use of the video ref)  and would stamp out the practice.

Previous calls for the video referee.

Australians have been calling for the video referee in this sport ever since they were wrongly knocked out of the 2006 world cup due to a dive by Fabio Grosso. Italy went on to win the world cup and Australia went home after the second round. Four years later and both Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell are given red cards. In both cases, video evidence would have seen the decision overturned. This costs Australia a spot in the second round (handing it to Ghana, who have just advanced to the quarter finals).

There have been other incidents in this world cup where video evidence would have overturned a crucial (incorrect) decision.

Why the sudden calls for video referees?

Why is it only now that there is a strong push for the video referee? Why is it that after England and Mexico have been harmed, is there a huge outcry? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of Australia were destroyed? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of New Zealand were destroyed (through a DeRossi Dive). Why not when Henry hand balled against Ireland?

I believe there is now an outcry because it is one of the superpowers who has suffered as a result of refereeing mistake (that could easily be fixed with video evidence). The injustice was suffered by England. Had the injustice been suffered by Australia, or Ireland, or New Zealand or any of the other teams who have already suffered injustices then there would be no outcry.

“But wait, you forgot to mention the Mexico incident”

I haven’t forgotten. The Mexico issue was merely used as a backup by those touting England’s case. Had it just been Mexico that was wronged, we may not have heard about it again. Having said that, Mexico can be seen as a superpower in this sport, or at least just below superpower status.

It’s nothing against England

I am not criticizing English fans here. I would be pissed off too. But the fact that the world decides to sit up and take notice of the issue now, rather than previously, is just wrong. The video ref should have been brought in years ago.

Where to from here?

The use of video technology is inevitable. If it is not brought in now, it will be brought in in 5 years. If not, then in another 5 years etc. The only question is: will video technology be brought in now?

I hope it is.

Regards

-Simon