4 ms·

I don't know your working definition of a metric, but if you think it is coextensive with "determining the consequences of your actions" then I'm sure it's not

I don't know your working definition of a metric, but if you think it is coextensive with "determining the consequences of your actions" then I'm sure it's not the right definition in this context. If you think it's necessary to measure before choosing a right course of action in every circumstance, I think you'll find that belief dissolves under a little scrutiny. From the reviews, the book seems to have some light statistics and introduction to Monte Carlo methods. I don't think it would have much to teach me about statistics or philosophy. It might be useful for someone without a background in statistics who is forced to navigate a business environment where people value metrics above all else, but I'm arguing against such environments.

perl4ever 7y ago
"I don't know your working definition of a metric, but if you think it is coextensive with "determining the consequences of your actions" then I'm sure it's not the right definition in this context" You wrote "In most situations in life, you must make a decision without any chance to know the results of your actions". So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wrong definition. Unless I'm missing a subtlety like perhaps consequences are not results? I agree that you probably wouldn't learn anything from that book.
- inimino 7y ago
  > So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wrong definition. No. You said a bunch of things, that to me are almost entirely unrelated, and I responded to several of them. One of them was about determining the consequences of actions and I responded to that because it was part of your argument about having personal values. Before any of that, you wrote: "How can one "fill the void" without measuring anything? Personal values may vary, but I can't see the concept of determining the consequences of your actions as being an optional one of them." The implication is that if you reject metrics you still have to measure and determine the consequences of your actions, so metrics are unavoidable. If metrics are not the same thing as "determining the consequences of your actions" to you, then you answered your own question of how to "fill the void": you determine the consequences of your actions without metrics. The question of whether metrics are a good way to determine the consequences of actions is separate from the question of consequentialism, or whether actions should be chosen by looking at consequences alone. You seem to be assuming both and I'm challenging both.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "No." You weren't clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, gotcha. Very helpful.

perl4ever 7y ago

"I don't know your working definition of a metric, but if you think it is coextensive with "determining the consequences of your actions" then I'm sure it's not the right definition in this context" You wrote "In most situations in life, you must make a decision without any chance to know the results of your actions". So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wrong definition. Unless I'm missing a subtlety like perhaps consequences are not results? I agree that you probably wouldn't learn anything from that book.

inimino 7y ago
> So it seems to me you were clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, in rejecting the need for metrics, that you now attribute to me and say it's the wrong definition. No. You said a bunch of things, that to me are almost entirely unrelated, and I responded to several of them. One of them was about determining the consequences of actions and I responded to that because it was part of your argument about having personal values. Before any of that, you wrote: "How can one "fill the void" without measuring anything? Personal values may vary, but I can't see the concept of determining the consequences of your actions as being an optional one of them." The implication is that if you reject metrics you still have to measure and determine the consequences of your actions, so metrics are unavoidable. If metrics are not the same thing as "determining the consequences of your actions" to you, then you answered your own question of how to "fill the void": you determine the consequences of your actions without metrics. The question of whether metrics are a good way to determine the consequences of actions is separate from the question of consequentialism, or whether actions should be chosen by looking at consequences alone. You seem to be assuming both and I'm challenging both.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "No." You weren't clearly expressing an idea of what a metric is, gotcha. Very helpful.