Art is very subjective and having to put numbers on it seems counterintuitive.
Good spectator sports share certain fundamentals. Their competitors battle head-to-head. Their winners are determined objectively: fastest runner, most points. They are refereed, not judged.
I've played games where I thought I played one of my better games, and statistically, there's nothing there, and vice versa. I've never based how I feel about my performance on stats.
When it comes to work, there is a fear factor around meritocracy. People are afraid of being openly judged. However, when you know what you are being measured against, it's empowering.
Let appointments and removals be made on business principles and fixed rules.
Employers, like most people, tend to trust their intuitions. But when employers decide whom to hire, they trust those intuitions far more than they should.
The wise policymaker doesn't assume that any policy adopted in good faith will have good results. Instead, he or she weighs the likely outcome of any new policy based on facts and experience - not sentiments and dreams.
How do you say one actor is better than another actor? You can definitely say that in the Olympics if it's the same race and someone wins the race. The only way to really do it and have it be sincere would be if you get all the actors together, and they're all playing the same part, and then you rate which one made you feel the most.
I judge each person on individual merits.
A creation needs not only subjectivity, but also objectivity.
To have full and multiple criteria is the best way to decide who is best prepared to be on that Olympic team.
If you are a plumber, there is an objective way to establish whether you put together a great piping system or not. Art is a bit more slippery than that.
Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable.
Sometimes fans, sometimes even players, they don't know the game sometimes, and they look at numbers, or they use smoke-and-mirrors as far as who's a top 15 player, who's a top 20 player.
I accept a character purely based on its merits and not on any other criteria.
Sport doesn't know barriers, really. You are judged on your performance... how far you can jump, how fast you can run, how well you can hit a tennis ball.
It cannot be precisely known how any thing is good or bad, till it is precisely known what it is.
Like our attitude to love, truth and goodness, we seem to be confident about knowing what beauty is - certain, even dogmatic - until we think hard about the idea, whereupon all confidence flies away.
The criterion for free choice can never be an absolute one, but neither is it entirely relative.
For business, government, and education, the lesson is clear: People ought to be relying far more on objective information and far less on interviews. They might even want to think about scaling back or cancelling interviews altogether. They'll save a lot of time - and make better decisions.
We never invest in a male; we never invest in a female. We just invest in the right entrepreneur.
In my view, technology should only be used on objective situations - offside, in or out of the box, over the line or not - but when it comes to subjective situations, people are never going to agree. That's sport.
People who buy your product or use your service don't care how tall or short you are, or what gender you are, or your age. It is irrelevant. That is not the basis on which your product is judged.
No scoring system is perfect, but a system that provides for flexibility in scores, if applied by the same taster without prejudice, can quantify different levels of wine quality and provide the reader with one professional's judgment.
