It could be read either way - it doesn't talk too much about differences between metrics, and groups them as near-equivalent. Anyway the exact intention of the

It could be read either way - it doesn't talk too much about differences between metrics, and groups them as near-equivalent. Anyway the exact intention of the author/article is not so important. My point is to say that one way that you could (and I'm sure some will) interpret it, is not good. Certainly we need to look at our social reward/incentive systems from an adversarial point of view, in science, economics, politics and elsewhere. Game theory is useful for that, and it can help us develop systems that are less-easily susceptible to the flaws that the article mentions.