3 ms·

I figure a reasonable rule of thumb is that if someone got to the top of some system by maximizing some metric X, where X is the main metric of merit in that sy

by psb217 2y ago

I figure a reasonable rule of thumb is that if someone got to the top of some system by maximizing some metric X, where X is the main metric of merit in that system, then they're unlikely to push for the system to prefer some other metric Y, even if Y is more aligned with the stated goals of the system. Pushing for a shift from X-based merit to Y-based merit would potentially imply that they're no longer sufficiently meritorious to rule the system. To your last point, I think a lot of systems reward ignorance in one way or another. Eg, plausible denial, appearance of good intent, and all other sorts of crap that can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

godelski 2y ago
While that's true, there's always exceptions. So I wouldn't say this with a defeated attitude. But I think it is also important to recognize that you can never measure things directly, it is always a proxy. Meaning that there's always a difference between what you measure and your actual goals. But I don't think it is just entrenched people that don't want to recognize this. The truth is that this means problems are much more complex and uncertain than we like. But there's actually good reason to believe the simple story, because the person selling that has clear evidence to their case while the nature of the truth is "be careful" or "maintain skepticism" is not only less exciting, it is, by nature, more abstract. Despite this, I think getting people to recognize that measures are proxies, that they are things that must be interpreted rather than read, is a powerful force when it comes to fixing these issues. After all, even if you remove those entrenched and change the metrics, you'll later end up again with entrenchment. This isn't all bad, as time to entrenchment matters, but we should try to make that take as long as possible and try to fix things before entrenchment happens. It's much easier to maintain a clean house than to clean a dirty one. It's the small subtle things that add up and compound.

by psb217 2y ago

godelski 2y ago

While that's true, there's always exceptions. So I wouldn't say this with a defeated attitude. But I think it is also important to recognize that you can never measure things directly, it is always a proxy. Meaning that there's always a difference between what you measure and your actual goals. But I don't think it is just entrenched people that don't want to recognize this. The truth is that this means problems are much more complex and uncertain than we like. But there's actually good reason to believe the simple story, because the person selling that has clear evidence to their case while the nature of the truth is "be careful" or "maintain skepticism" is not only less exciting, it is, by nature, more abstract. Despite this, I think getting people to recognize that measures are proxies, that they are things that must be interpreted rather than read, is a powerful force when it comes to fixing these issues. After all, even if you remove those entrenched and change the metrics, you'll later end up again with entrenchment. This isn't all bad, as time to entrenchment matters, but we should try to make that take as long as possible and try to fix things before entrenchment happens. It's much easier to maintain a clean house than to clean a dirty one. It's the small subtle things that add up and compound.