A Level Economics: When you Define Something you Miss the point

The quote "when you define something you miss the point" suggests that attempting to provide a strict, rigid, or fixed definition for something can lead to an oversimplified or incomplete understanding of that thing's true nature or essence. In other words, the act of defining something can sometimes limit our perception of its complexity, nuances, and broader context.

This idea can be interpreted in a few different ways:

1. Limiting Complexity: Many concepts, ideas, or phenomena are intricate and multifaceted, and they may not fit neatly into a single definition. By trying to define them with a specific set of words, we might inadvertently leave out important aspects that contribute to their full meaning.

2. 
   

3. Subjectivity and Perspective: Definitions often reflect a particular perspective or point of view. Different people might have different understandings or interpretations of the same thing, and an attempt to rigidly define it could ignore these diverse viewpoints.

4. 
   

5. Evolution and Change: Concepts can evolve over time, adapting to new contexts, technologies, and social dynamics. A fixed definition might not accurately capture these changes, leading to an outdated or inaccurate understanding.

6. 
   

7. Emotional and Experiential Aspects: Some things, especially abstract concepts or emotions, can't be fully captured by definitions alone. Their experiential or emotional components might be more important than a literal description.

8. 
   

9. Uniqueness: Some things are so unique or unconventional that trying to define them using conventional language falls short. In these cases, attempting to define them might indeed miss their true essence.

In essence, the quote encourages us to embrace the complexity and depth of things rather than confining them within rigid definitions. It suggests that understanding something comprehensively might involve acknowledging its multifaceted nature, allowing for various interpretations, and being open to the idea that some things are best understood through experience, observation, and an open mind rather than through a strict definition.

---

Let's explore each point with some examples:

1. Limiting Complexity: Imagine trying to define the concept of "love." Love is a complex emotion that can encompass various feelings such as affection, attachment, compassion, and more. Attempting to define love with a single sentence might miss out on the intricate interplay of emotions and experiences that contribute to its true essence.

2. 
   

3. Subjectivity and Perspective: Consider the definition of "success." For one person, success might mean achieving a high-paying job, while for another, it could mean having a fulfilling family life. The definition of success varies based on personal values, cultural background, and life experiences.

4. 
   

5. Evolution and Change: The term "technology" has evolved over time. Defining technology solely as "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes" might not capture the rapid advancements in fields like artificial intelligence or biotechnology. A definition created a few decades ago could miss the modern scope of technology.

6. 
   

7. Emotional and Experiential Aspects: Defining "happiness" as a state of well-being might fail to capture the deeply personal and emotional nature of the feeling. People experience happiness in diverse ways, and it involves subjective elements that are hard to encapsulate in a definition.

8. 
   

9. Uniqueness: Certain works of art or creative expressions are so unique that defining them becomes challenging. Consider avant-garde art that challenges traditional definitions of beauty and meaning. Trying to rigidly define such art might neglect the intention of the artist and the emotional impact it elicits.

In all these examples, attempting to define these concepts using narrow, strict definitions could result in missing the depth, richness, and dynamic nature that make them meaningful and significant. The quote reminds us to approach these concepts with openness, acknowledging their complexities, subjectivity, and the ways they transcend conventional definitions.

Learning batting from David Warner

Ed Smith

On Sunday, I fly to Adelaide for the fourth Test between India and Australia. I'm due to arrive just in time for the first ball. I hope the plane isn't late: David Warner might have scored a hundred by lunch.

In smashing 180 off 159 balls in Perth, Warner proved quite a few people wrong - not least those who said that Twenty20 would never produce a Test cricketer. Warner, of course, played T20 for Australia and in the IPL long before making the step-up to Test cricket - well, I suppose it's up to him to judge whether it's a step up. 

We've all heard the arguments against the Warner career path: that T20 ruins technique rather than developing it, that you have to learn to bat properly before you can learn to smash it, walk before you can run etc.

But the naysayers may be wrong. The Warner story reveals deep truths about how players bat at their best. In fact, I think it is time we reconsidered the whole question of what constitutes good technique.

Cricket gets itself in a tangle about the word. In football, technique is short-hand for skill. Pundits explain how Cesc Fabregas' brilliant technique allows him to make the killer pass or eye-catching volley. Technique is not the enemy of flair and self-expression: it is the necessary pre-requisite. "Technique is freedom," argued the ballet dancer Vaslav Nijinsky.

Sadly, the word "technique" in cricket is often used as short-hand for controlled batsmanship, even introspection. It is true that some great technicians are very controlled players (think of Rahul Dravid - though even he plays best technically when he is positive). But it is not compulsory that good technique has to be accompanied by caution or repression. After all, Adam Gilchrist had a wonderful technique: there is no other explanation for how he managed to hit the ball in the middle of the bat quite so consistently.

In fact, good technique has a very straightforward definition: it is the simplest, most efficient way of doing something.

Andre Agassi had near-perfect technique on his groundstrokes. He could hit with exceptional power and consistency. How did he learn this technique? When Agassi was a boy, his father used to get him to hit thousands of tennis balls as hard and as cleanly as possible. "Hit it, Andre!" That was the essence of his coaching. If you learn how to hit the ball hard in the middle of the racket, you have to move your body and feet into the right positions to do so. In the same way, Jack Nicklaus summed up his approach to learning golf: "First, hit it hard. Then we'll worry about getting it in the hole."

I should have remembered Agassi and Nicklaus when I was out of form as a batsman and needed to go back to basics. Not only did I suffer prolonged periods of bad form, I would often get out in similar ways - nicking off to the slips, or getting trapped lbw. There were usually plenty of theories about what I was doing wrong. As one coach memorably put it to me, "If you stop getting caught and lbw, you'll be a top player." Er, yes: it would take great ingenuity to get bowled or run out throughout your career!

Many coaches tried to persuade me to change my shot selection. But that rarely helped. When I was nicking off, it was usually because I was driving badly rather than driving at the wrong ball. And I was a far less good player when I was knocked off my instinct to play positively. I came to realise that good form was a very simple issue, almost binary - like a switch that just needed to be clicked back on.

Here comes the difficult part that used to get me into trouble. I learnt that the best way to click the switch back on, to get back into the groove of playing well, was to practise driving on the up. You've probably guessed why it got me in trouble. Imagine a situation in which I had failed three or four times in a row, each time caught in the slips, and the coach walks into the nets and sees me…practising drives! I'd sense him thinking: "Doesn't he ever learn?"

But I knew what worked for me, and I think there are good reasons why it worked. To play at my best, I needed to get into good positions to attack. Why? Because when I was in position to attack, I was inevitably in a good position also to defend. But when I set out my stall to play a defensive shot - before the ball was even bowled - then I not only attacked badly, I also defended badly. Having the intention of defending caused me to be passive and late in my movements. The shot would almost happen to me, rather than me determining the shot.

	To play at my best, I needed to get into good positions to attack. Why? Because when I was in position to attack, I was inevitably in a good position also to defend

On the other hand, having the intention of attacking was a win-win: I defended and attacked better. I would set myself to play positively, which had the effect of giving me more time at every stage of the shot.

I think many players are the same. The key to their batting - whether it is defence or attack - is the question of intent. That has nothing to do with recklessness, or even scoring rate. Intent merely determines the messages you send to your brain. Imagine batting as a series of dominos that culminates in the ball being struck. The very first domino, the critical one that begins the whole process, is not physical, but mental. We might call it your "mental trigger movement".

I know it sounds ridiculously simplistic - technique from kindergarten - but many players find that the best mental trigger movement is setting themselves to move towards the ball to strike it back in the direction that it comes from. That does not mean you commit to lurching onto the front foot or playing a drive; you still react to whatever is thrown at you. But your intent is positive and pro-active.

Greg Chappell used the science of physiology to examine the connection between intent and good execution. He studied the preliminary movements of the world's greatest players. Though they all had unique styles and methods, their techniques shared one common thread: at the point of delivery, they were all pushing off the back foot, looking to come forward. Chappell argued that this trait gives great players optimal time to judge length. Why? Because a full ball is released from the bowler's hand early, a short ball is released later. So when batsmen set themselves for the full ball, they will inevitably have time to adjust for the short ball.

Here is my heretical conclusion: by encouraging them to have the intention of striking down the ground with a proper backlift and swing of the bat, T20 may help batsmen get into some good technical habits. Admittedly, T20 will not develop the refinements of sophisticated Test match batting, such as soft hands and the ability to concentrate for six or seven hours. But in terms of basic technique, there is a lot to be said for keeping cricket as simple as possible. The foundation is positive intent and a clear head. In short, we could all learn something from Warner.

The counter-argument is that Warner is a freak of nature, and that no one should try copying him just yet. Either way, I can't wait to watch him in Adelaide and judge for myself.