3 ms·
Discussions like these always feel too reductive to me. Both of you take extremist positions, when I’m sure you do both agree that the proper approach is obviou
by 9dev 2y ago
Discussions like these always feel too reductive to me. Both of you take extremist positions, when I’m sure you do both agree that the proper approach is obviously a middleground: Strive to gather objective numbers and measure things as much as possible to become able to make factual decisions, but don’t disregard human intuition just because it’s not measurable; after all, it’s a tool shaped by millions of years of evolution, culminating in creatures ruling the world due to their ability to assess social contexts correctly.
To put it differently—measure what you can; trust your feelings on the rest.
- glimshe 2y ago"Measure what you can" isn't the right approach. You can measure many, many things. Instead, you should measure things whenever they are good proxies for the outcomes you want to drive AND there is good cost benefit in measuring+analyzing them. Surprisingly few things meet these criteria.
- dwb 2y agoOf course I agree that the right thing is some sort of middle ground, of roughly what you lay out. But the current hegemonic position is that of metrics-supremacy, so I feel I have to argue most strongly against that to get us to that middle ground.
- dyauspitr 2y agoWhen you argue like that, that’s what’s generally referred to as “pushing an agenda” and people sour to it quickly. You’re better off sticking to your actual argument than embellishing things.
- dwb 2y agoI'm not embellishing anything, I'm making my "actual" arguments. I've never argued against seeking a sensible middle-ground. I've said elsewhere that metrics have their place.