Keeping up with systemic change. “There’s something unsettling about seeing the brain as one big argument. We like to believe that our decisions reflect a clear cortical consensus, that the entire mind agrees on what we should do. And yet, that serene self-image has little basis in reality.” [4] Jonah Lehrer – How We Decide “He who can handle the quickest rate of change survives.” [6] John Boyd – Frans Osinga, Science, Strategy and War, The Strategic Theory of John Boyd

1. A Decision/Action Model for Soccer – Pt 8
Individual decision making
Keeping up with systemic change
“There’s something unsettling about seeing the brain as one big argument. We like to
believe that our decisions reflect a clear cortical consensus, that the entire mind agrees
on what we should do. And yet, that serene self-image has little basis in reality.” [4]
Jonah Lehrer – How We Decide
“He who can handle the quickest rate of change survives.” [6]
John Boyd – Frans Osinga, Science, Strategy and War, The Strategic Theory of John Boyd
1

2. Cognitive hardware
“The mind is made up out of used parts” [4]
According to Lehrer there are three decision-making systems. They are interrelated and
together operate on a functional level.
 The emotional system. The orbitofrontal cortex and limbic system are “responsible for
integrating visceral emotions into the decision-making process.” [4] The emotional system
is synonymous with System 1 and works through neuromodulators like dopamine.
 The rational system. The prefrontal cortex (what separates man from lower animals) “lets
her analyze any type of problem from any possible angle. Instead of responding to the
most obvious facts, or the facts that her emotions think are most important, she can
concentrate on the facts that might help her come up with the right answer.” [4] The
rational system is synonymous with System 2.
 The moral/social system. Mirror neurons “allow us to grasp the minds of others not
through conceptual reasoning but through direct simulation; by feeling, not by thinking.”
“The capacity for making moral decisions is innate… but it still requires the right kind of
experience in order to develop.” [4] Moral decision-making replaces ‘me with we.’
Subjectivity gives way to the intersubjective point of view. [2]
 “Man is by nature a social animal… Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-
sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”
Aristotle. [4]
2

3. Decision-making as an argument
“The default state of the brain is indecisive disagreement;
various mental parts are constantly insisting that the other parts are wrong.” [4]
In soccer the emotional, rational and moral/social systems are rarely on the same page. Each
system constrains and feeds the other two. The interactions are dynamic, unpredictable
combinations of feed forward and feedback loops. In turn this creates conflict and tension in
the decision-making process. In this sense, decision-making is an emergent property based
on systemic thresholds, available information, context, experience, time and resources i.e.
other people.
Over reliance on one system or coalition can create certainty, a bias, in decision-making. This
leads to predictable behavior which opponents can exploit and becomes the infamous ‘my
only tool is a hammer approach.’ In order to survive or thrive in an unpredictable world it’s
important to avoid this trap:
 “Certainty imposes consensus on this inner cacophony. It lets you pretend that your entire brain agrees
with your behavior. You can now ignore those annoying fears and nagging suspicions, those statistical
outliers and inconvenient truths.” [4]
 “The only way to counteract this bias for certainty is to encourage some inner dissonance. We must
force ourselves to think about the information we don’t want to think about, to pay attention to the
data that disturbs our entrenched beliefs.” [4]
A touch of doubt keeps an open mind which allows for rapid transitions between the systems.
3

4. The individual’s sweet spot
“The first step to making better decisions is to see ourselves as we really are,
to look inside the black box of the human brain.” [4]
A simple hierarchy for individual decision making is:
1. When you have enough experience and ‘get the picture’ choose the first emotional
response that comes to mind. Follow your gut; use System 1.
2. When there’s ‘a doubt in mind’ and time is available use reason. Take an educated
guess; use System 2.
3. When you are confused find a teammate and follow his or her lead. Follow the
leader; look to authority, formal and informal for direction, protection and order.
Imitate and complement positive behavior.
Just like the model in part-7, this
creates a sweet spot at ‘a’. Balancing
the decision strategies between
emotion, reason and
moral/social considerations requires self
and situational awareness. However, there
are situations that benefit from a limited
strategy such as taking a free kick (heavy
reason) or being a goal down with five
minutes to play (stronger emotion).
4

5. The context for initial decisions
“Minds choose what to do next.” [3]
“I think of minds as the control structures of autonomous agents. The function of a mind is at
each instance to decide what to do next… A mechanism of mind is some piece of the
architecture of such a control structure that enables it to so decide.” [3]
Players are confronted with an overwhelming number of options (details) to choose from and
act on. These details come in the form of a constant flow of bits of feedback, unfolding
circumstances and new information. Individuals monitor this flow through a coalition of
rational, emotional, moral (REM) filters. In turn, this adds another layer to the complexity of
the decision-making process. (How do I decide what to do now? What tool do I use to go
forward now?)
Note; as additional elements are added
decision-making becomes more complex.
Boundaries are smaller, timescales decrease,
points of departure and coalitions flip unpredictably.
Tightly coupled systems are rigid and harder to
change; too loose and there’s nothing for the system
to start from. Additionally, this increases noise which
makes the correct response harder to find.
5

6. Balancing decision systems
Ramp up or tamp down with negative feedback
The diagram below shows how negative feedback works in the REM model.
 Rational, emotional, moral/social or a coalition decision-making process is the context.
 The baseline is the goal state in that context, the so-called point of optimization
 The upper limit is the boundary between current orientation and the need to reorient. Exceeding the
boundary leads to a positive feedback explosion, too much tension, confusion and chaos.
 The lower limit is the boundary between current
orientation and a lack of stimulation, the line of
‘too easy and boring.’ Attention is blocked.
 All of this unfolds against passing time.
The oscillating negative feedback line tracks the
individuals responses to changing goal states
over time. Since the context,
internal/external environments are constantly
in flux the baseline, upper and lower limits continually
change. The player with the greatest sensitivity
to the “difference that makes a difference” [1] has an
OODA advantage. The player caught in a positive
feedback loop or is slow to reorient to change is
headed for a “brutal audit.” [7]
 “Our ability to deal with chaos depends on structures
that have been developed before the chaos arrives. When the chaos arrives, it serves as "an abrupt and
brutal audit.”’ [7]
6

7. Rinus Michels
Outsmarting them, out fighting them and team efficient solutions are the “path to winning”
“Only the player can anticipate the unpredictability of the constantly changing
moments in the game. His team tactical education is focused on finding the
most team efficient solution in every situation he comes across. This means: to
get everything and maybe even a little more out of the game!
Not only does every player want to outsmart his opponent and win the ‘battles’,
but he also wants to win the game! He cannot do this by himself. He can only
succeed with teamwork while defending, building-up and attacking. The
individual challenge and team spirit are uncompromisingly linked together. It
does not matter how many years they have played, how much money they have
already made, the challenge and love for the ‘battle’ will never cease to exist
even in top in top-notch players.” [5]
Outsmarting the opponent requires reason; team efficient solutions are based
on moral/social decision-making across distributed tasks; battles are a contest of
emotional will. Winning, in the long run, requires all three.
7

8. Summary
“’Anyone can become angry – that is easy, but to become angry with the right person, to the right
degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not easy.’
That requires some thought.” [4]
“The ability to supervise itself, to exercise authority over its own decision-making process,
is one of the most mysterious talents of the human brain.” [4]
Ultimately the avenues that players use for decision-making are reason, emotion, moral/social or a
coalition. These avenues are laid down and influenced through their genetic heritage, cultural
traditions and previous experience; (These create the structures that have to deal with the “brutal
audits” on slide 6). An individuals structural and systemic strength or weakness in any avenue is
relative to the context i.e. age, position and level. The structures and systems are not stable, they
are open to growth and decay.
The avenues create internal and interrelated positive and negative feedback loops.
 Unchecked thinking leads to paralysis by analysis; not enough thinking allows emotion to run free i.e.
bull headed.
 Unchecked emotion leads to red cards; not enough emotion surrenders before the ‘battle’ begins.
 Unchecked moral/social considerations hinders individual initiative; not enough moral/social thought
leads to ‘the lone wolf’.
 The balance between too much - too little, too long - too short inside and between these avenues
has to be right. In short, emergent negative feedback cycles and loops must aim for an ever
changing point of equilibrium.
Considering that all of the players are experiencing the same thing it’s clear that the time spent
developing the fingerspitzengefühl inside the team is a vital component for individual development
as well as Teambuilding. Interaction is enhanced when a player understands their own and others
rational, emotional and moral/social point of view. In short, a highly developed sense of empathy
is paramount to individual play and team cohesion.
8

9. Selected references
1. BATESON, G. March 2013, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson).
2. BEA, R. 2011, Managing Rapidly Developing Crises: Real-Time Prevention of Failures
(Deepwater Horizon Study Group, Working Paper).
3. FRANKLIN, S. March 2013, (http://machineslikeus.com/biographies/stan-franklin).
4. LEHRER, J. 2010, How We Decide (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company).
5. MICHELS, R. 2001, Teambuilding, The Road to Success (Spring City, Pa: Reedswain).
6. OSINGA, F. 2007, Science, Strategy and War, The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (New
York: Routledge).
7. WEICK, K. March 2013,
(http://www.bus.umich.edu/facultyresearch/research/TryingTimes/Rules.htm).
9

10. Thank you
“I’ll live or die by my own ideas.” Johan Cruyff
Presentation created March, 2013 by Larry Paul, Peoria Arizona.
All references are available as stated.
All content is the responsibility of the author.
For questions contact me at larry4v4-at-hotmail.com, subject decision/action
model.
For additional information see the the other pdf’s on Slideshare under the more
tab or visit the bettersoccermorefun channel on YouTube.
10