Clouds and Clocks: Newtonian tools in a complex world
“The quest for precision is analogous to the quest for certainty, and both should be abandoned.” – Karl Popper
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
— Frank Herbert
I use technology. I use it daily to create efficiency in process and objectivity in communicating results. I do, however, believe there is an inherent assumption when I am using any sort of technology. The assumption is this:
Technology design is based on a Newtonian-reductionist approach
Reductionist? Newtonian? What do you mean? The clouds and clocks analogy given by Karl Popper is a beautiful illustration.
A slide taken from the High Performance Hockey Masterclass depicting clouds (World 3) and clocks (World 2).
Clock: Reliable, predictable, orderly, inanimate, Newtonian-Reductionist
Clouds: Irregular, disorderly, complex, random, unpredictable, animate
As coaches, we mustn’t confuse clouds with clocks. Clouds are complex. Complexity implies an intractable relationship between the parts and the whole. Each component is ignorant of the behavior of the system.
At the current moment, there are:
59 metrics available for coaches to assess the vertical jump in the Hawin Dynamics force plate system
13 metrics available to assess internal training load in the FirstBeat system
250 metrics available to assess external training load in the Catapult system
100’s of new technologies entered into the market daily
As a coach, we could spend an entire day assessing one countermovement jump. Here are a few questions I often ponder:
Is it important? Why? If I change it, will it drive performance? If I change it, will other aspects of performance drop? How often should it change by chance alone? Do I have the time to change it? Does it affect the scoreboard? Is it interesting or important? What are the limitations of the technology? What are the limitations of humans using the technology? Do I understand the game to provide proper context? Do the numbers match my gut feelings- heuristics? Is the technology valid? As my friend Franco Impellizzeri says validity is broad in context, but narrow in application. “The measure can be valid for something, but not valid for something else.” An accurate measure, is not always a good measure.
If only the human body and the scoreboard behaved like a clock. We could take it apart, identify and improve the lacking hardware and bingo, the performance mystery would be solved. “If only metric “X” could be improved, he’d play professional hockey.” “I’ve ID the causative performance decrement, and targeting metric “X” will fix it.” Unfortunately, we deal with complex beings in complex environments. This is the world of sport.
“Complex problems change when you look at them, when you talk with them, and when you engage with them.” -John Rendon
Technology is great. However, we must make sure to understand the assumptions pertaining to its use. A purposeful first step in this process, is understanding more about complex systems. I have recommended three books below to increase and improve these critical faculties.
Clouds are not clocks, and clocks are not clouds. “Complex problems cannot be solved because any attempt to create a solution changes the nature of the problem.” I use many of the technologies mentioned in this article, but I rely on my first principals’ knowledge (programming, physics, physiology, phycology, biomechanics) and a solid understanding of the environment in which I operate. I also rely on the “subjective” understanding of the metric hamburger. This enables me to appraise how, when, and if I may use existing, or new technologies and/or metrics in the future. As coaches, we are using Newtonian tools in complex world. The key is understanding this fact.
