4 ms·

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

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.

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.