3 ms·

That book looks interesting but it also seems like it is mostly anecdotal. I'd prefer something similar but with hard numbers behind it. Is my impression mistak

by csdrane 10y ago

That book looks interesting but it also seems like it is mostly anecdotal. I'd prefer something similar but with hard numbers behind it. Is my impression mistaken?

protomyth 10y ago
Its mostly anecdotal, but in a lot of ways that's part of the problem. Most of the selected books with stats are by people who haven't lived in rural areas for a while. Its basically archeology by number more than direct study. Plus, we're talking about culture, hard numbers are not the whole story or even the majority of the story. This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. Now for my pet peeve from writing grants in the 90's: The federal government is pretty damn lax about getting rural numbers from studies. Its either a nationwide study or urban areas only. The stuff they get from rural areas is the stuff that doesn't require someone in DC to actual do anything beyond taking basic numbers and putting into a spreadsheet.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. What is often referred to as understanding should IMO be called empathy instead, because it's necessary but not sufficient for finding solutions. Actions can be motivated by empathy, but they need to be supported by quantitative evidence.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. How much do you love your partner or nearest relatives in numeric terms? How do you work out disagreements. I think we have slipped a little far from the path of actual understanding to know what we need to measure and how.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      That's not what I would call understanding. And we do use quantifiable or at least rational means to resolve disagreements. That's the only way to be sure of being equitable.
  - coupdetaco 10y ago
    Pattern recognition. Trust your brain to sense, judge, and intuit the correct answer. You can identify correlations without turning a computer on if you have enough qualitative 'data'. That's what being an educated person is all about.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      That doesn't sound like it could possibly scale. I sure wouldn't trust anyone's individual brain to intuit correct answers for an entire society without having quantitative data.

by csdrane 10y ago

That book looks interesting but it also seems like it is mostly anecdotal. I'd prefer something similar but with hard numbers behind it. Is my impression mistaken?

protomyth 10y ago

Its mostly anecdotal, but in a lot of ways that's part of the problem. Most of the selected books with stats are by people who haven't lived in rural areas for a while. Its basically archeology by number more than direct study. Plus, we're talking about culture, hard numbers are not the whole story or even the majority of the story. This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. Now for my pet peeve from writing grants in the 90's: The federal government is pretty damn lax about getting rural numbers from studies. Its either a nationwide study or urban areas only. The stuff they get from rural areas is the stuff that doesn't require someone in DC to actual do anything beyond taking basic numbers and putting into a spreadsheet.

nitrogen 10y ago
This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. What is often referred to as understanding should IMO be called empathy instead, because it's necessary but not sufficient for finding solutions. Actions can be motivated by empathy, but they need to be supported by quantitative evidence.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. How much do you love your partner or nearest relatives in numeric terms? How do you work out disagreements. I think we have slipped a little far from the path of actual understanding to know what we need to measure and how.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    That's not what I would call understanding. And we do use quantifiable or at least rational means to resolve disagreements. That's the only way to be sure of being equitable.
- coupdetaco 10y ago
  Pattern recognition. Trust your brain to sense, judge, and intuit the correct answer. You can identify correlations without turning a computer on if you have enough qualitative 'data'. That's what being an educated person is all about.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    That doesn't sound like it could possibly scale. I sure wouldn't trust anyone's individual brain to intuit correct answers for an entire society without having quantitative data.