Despite it being an important part of our lives, I suspect this is only the second post in the 7 year history of Psyberton on the subject of football (real football that is, played with the feet). I’m making this posting because this is a wonderful illustration of why objective logic is a useless decision making tool, which is of course a large part of my agenda here.
Circular (strange-loopy) arguments are so much better.
Notwithstanding Sir Alex’s paranoid reasoning, referee Halsey was indeed right to give “serious foul play” as his reason for Terry’s red-card / sending-off last weekend, and wrong to be persuaded to rescind it. It was an absolutely blatant so-called “professional foul” …. no-one at all seems to be arguing with that. It was so blatantly professional that clearly Terry’s and everyone else’s calculations (except Halsey’s) was banking on a yellow-card warning only, based on the “not the last man” defence.
Rules evolve, like everything else. As soon as the last man defence (post-rationlization) becomes part of the reasoning in the decision (a-priori) to actually make the “professional foul”, it moves on from simply being part of the rationale; onto a meta-level, another cycle of a strange-loop, to become part of the foul itself. It excludes itself from application of the new/old rule. The reasoning for applying the more lenient view arose in the days before the offenders had that objective rule available to them in making their cynical calculating rule-breaking decision, before that strange-loop had happened. Once it has happened, game over … and remember evolving psychology really is a game, just like football is a game … effectively the new (now old) rule has a new(er) interpretation / manifestation in real life, beyond the sterile realm of pure objective logic.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the enslavement of fools. (Douglas Bader ?)
Wisdom comes from going round a few loops. Well done Mr Halsey; stand by your own gut feel, and help evolve the human species out of this mess.