4 ms·

> It's the human tendency to optimise the quantifiable and ignore the unquantified. Are you sure that isn’t just a modern trend now that we are able to quantif

by zepto 5y ago

> It's the human tendency to optimise the quantifiable and ignore the unquantified. Are you sure that isn’t just a modern trend now that we are able to quantify so much stuff?

Talanes 5y ago
Modern society is just the result of countless generations of the human tendency to quantify. We just have so many things quantified now that our problems tend to be more "using the wrong quantifications" rather than "not having the right quantifications."
- zepto 5y ago
  > Modern society is just the result of countless generations of the human tendency to quantify. Is it? I see no evidence to justify this statement at all. Care to show some? The vast majority of how society is organized seems to eschew quantification in favor of descriptive qualification. Most laws, and governance, for example are formed that way. The use of metrics in governance has been dramatically increasing as our methods of quantification have developed, but that is definitely a modern development.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Descriptive qualification is a necessary stepping stone to qualification though, so of course society built on it first. Something must be described and defined before it can be counted. Modernity emerges from humanity first; influences it second.
    - zepto 5y ago
      So what? Weaving is a necessary stepping stone to making lounge suits. That doesn’t mean humanity has been destined to wear lounge suits all along.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        The lounge-suit example is so much more specific than the topic at hand, that's just a farcical comparison. Any sort of broad logic will break down if you try and stretch it 1:1 to more narrow situations.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    > The vast majority of how society is organized seems to eschew quantification in favor of descriptive qualification. > The use of metrics in governance has been dramatically increasing as our methods of quantification have developed, but that is definitely a modern development. These two statements seem slightly contradictory. If quantified metrics in governance has increased as our ability to quantify things has increased, then it would seem that laws did not favor descriptive qualification, they merely relied on it due to lack of ability to quantify. Or put another way: The only times we don't quantify things is when we cannot.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > The only times we don't quantify things is when we cannot. Just because something has increased recently doesn’t mean there is an inbuilt human tendency for it. For example the wearing of lounge suits for business is a modern development. I don’t think you are going to claim that means there was a ‘human tendency’ for lounge suits all along.
      - xboxnolifes 5y ago
        > Just because something has increased recently doesn’t mean there is an inbuilt human tendency for it. Sure, but that wasn't my point. I was just showing the flaw in logic of the two quotes given. My original claim was not that we definitely quantify when we can, but that the reasonings given do not support your claim.
        zepto 5y ago
        Sure but the reasonings don’t support the opposing claim, and that’s all that matters for this purpose. I don’t need to prove that we don’t have a built in tendency, only, that there is no proof that we do.
        Talanes 5y ago
        It's a matter of framing. We have different standards for what the null hypothesis should be. My perspective is to assume human behavior as a relatively broad constant until proven otherwise.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
I'm not much of a history buff, but I can't recall a good example of cultures or societal periods with emphasis on optimizing the unquantifiable (Or having no optimization preference at all). The only decent examples that I can think are in laws, and that only seems to be favored because things are difficult to be quantified, not because the unquantifiable was more preferred.
- zepto 5y ago
  Can you think of a historical period in the distant part where there is evidence of a preference for quantification? It seem like you are simply assuming that was present.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    Assuming we are talking about innate and not cultural qualities: If I do not assume we optimize for the quantifiable, I must assume either (1) we optimize for the unquantifiable, (2) we do not favor one way or the other (innately), or (3) human nature has changed over a very short (few thousand year) time period. I was trying to rule out (1). (3) Seems pretty easy to rule out purely on our understanding of evolution. And (2) would follow after ruling out (1) and accepting the original assumption. But onto this: > Can you think of a historical period in the distant part where there is evidence of a preference for quantification? Tax law.
    - zepto 5y ago
      ‘Tax law’ is not a historical period, nor is it evidence of a preference for quantification in general. Given your apparent desire to be logical about this, it seems almost absurd that you would give this answer.
      - xboxnolifes 5y ago
        Tax law throughout all time. I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that point.

by zepto 5y ago

> It's the human tendency to optimise the quantifiable and ignore the unquantified. Are you sure that isn’t just a modern trend now that we are able to quantify so much stuff?

Talanes 5y ago

Modern society is just the result of countless generations of the human tendency to quantify. We just have so many things quantified now that our problems tend to be more "using the wrong quantifications" rather than "not having the right quantifications."

zepto 5y ago
> Modern society is just the result of countless generations of the human tendency to quantify. Is it? I see no evidence to justify this statement at all. Care to show some? The vast majority of how society is organized seems to eschew quantification in favor of descriptive qualification. Most laws, and governance, for example are formed that way. The use of metrics in governance has been dramatically increasing as our methods of quantification have developed, but that is definitely a modern development.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Descriptive qualification is a necessary stepping stone to qualification though, so of course society built on it first. Something must be described and defined before it can be counted. Modernity emerges from humanity first; influences it second.
  - zepto 5y ago
    So what? Weaving is a necessary stepping stone to making lounge suits. That doesn’t mean humanity has been destined to wear lounge suits all along.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      The lounge-suit example is so much more specific than the topic at hand, that's just a farcical comparison. Any sort of broad logic will break down if you try and stretch it 1:1 to more narrow situations.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > The vast majority of how society is organized seems to eschew quantification in favor of descriptive qualification. > The use of metrics in governance has been dramatically increasing as our methods of quantification have developed, but that is definitely a modern development. These two statements seem slightly contradictory. If quantified metrics in governance has increased as our ability to quantify things has increased, then it would seem that laws did not favor descriptive qualification, they merely relied on it due to lack of ability to quantify. Or put another way: The only times we don't quantify things is when we cannot.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The only times we don't quantify things is when we cannot. Just because something has increased recently doesn’t mean there is an inbuilt human tendency for it. For example the wearing of lounge suits for business is a modern development. I don’t think you are going to claim that means there was a ‘human tendency’ for lounge suits all along.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      > Just because something has increased recently doesn’t mean there is an inbuilt human tendency for it. Sure, but that wasn't my point. I was just showing the flaw in logic of the two quotes given. My original claim was not that we definitely quantify when we can, but that the reasonings given do not support your claim.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Sure but the reasonings don’t support the opposing claim, and that’s all that matters for this purpose. I don’t need to prove that we don’t have a built in tendency, only, that there is no proof that we do.
        Talanes 5y ago
        It's a matter of framing. We have different standards for what the null hypothesis should be. My perspective is to assume human behavior as a relatively broad constant until proven otherwise.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

I'm not much of a history buff, but I can't recall a good example of cultures or societal periods with emphasis on optimizing the unquantifiable (Or having no optimization preference at all). The only decent examples that I can think are in laws, and that only seems to be favored because things are difficult to be quantified, not because the unquantifiable was more preferred.

zepto 5y ago
Can you think of a historical period in the distant part where there is evidence of a preference for quantification? It seem like you are simply assuming that was present.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Assuming we are talking about innate and not cultural qualities: If I do not assume we optimize for the quantifiable, I must assume either (1) we optimize for the unquantifiable, (2) we do not favor one way or the other (innately), or (3) human nature has changed over a very short (few thousand year) time period. I was trying to rule out (1). (3) Seems pretty easy to rule out purely on our understanding of evolution. And (2) would follow after ruling out (1) and accepting the original assumption. But onto this: > Can you think of a historical period in the distant part where there is evidence of a preference for quantification? Tax law.
  - zepto 5y ago
    ‘Tax law’ is not a historical period, nor is it evidence of a preference for quantification in general. Given your apparent desire to be logical about this, it seems almost absurd that you would give this answer.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      Tax law throughout all time. I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that point.