3 ms·

"Quality" is what we call the difference between what we like and what's objectively successful, not a property of any object. It's the name we give to one of m

by bulatb 2y ago

"Quality" is what we call the difference between what we like and what's objectively successful, not a property of any object. It's the name we give to one of many ways we confuse "is" and "ought." There's nothing we can say about a thing with "quality" we couldn't also say by tediously listing every single property it has. The only thing that only "quality" can add is information about what the speaker thinks is good. In other words, it's purely an opinion. If most people don't have strong opinions on most products, which seems true, then quality is null for most pairs of person and product—so "most people don't care about quality."

forgetfreeman 2y ago
Nah. Borrow your grandfather's 50 year old screwdriver after having been afflicted by a set from <insert big box hardware store here> and tell me more about how quality isn't an intrinsic property.
- bulatb 2y ago
  "Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" are obviously properties of certain screwdrivers, which maybe you don't get with modern ones. I didn't need to say the screwdriver is "quality" to say that. I just had to say what's true. The only thing I'd add by saying "quality" is that I think a screwdriver that "doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" is good, which only tells you something about me. If I'd be happy with a different one that breaks and won't turn screws, I simply wouldn't call the old one "quality" and nothing about either one would change. You might think it's weird if I don't care about a basic thing like whether it turns screws, but maybe I just want a cheap, simple prop for a movie. Maybe it's about a guy whose tools don't work. Maybe I just want the crappy plastic part because it's perfect for some art I'm making. Maybe I bet someone I could break it with a hammer. All that information about me could change what's fit for me to buy, but none of it would change what's true about the product.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Try what I told you, I get the impression you'll learn something in the process.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    > "Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" are obviously properties of certain screwdrivers, which maybe you don't get with modern ones. I didn't need to say the screwdriver is "quality" to say that. I just had to say what's true. When talking about the "quality" of an items intrinsic properties, it's not about what the person feels, some may wrongly use it in that way, but when using "quality" to describe a screwdriver, then that conveys that it is a device that "Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws". That is not my opinion, it is a fact; it continues to do the exact thing it is suppose to do without issue. I shouldn't have to specify that this device drives screws and doesn't break after one use to someone who knows what a screwdriver is. And who would probably find it condescending or patronizing. Saying it's "quality" is a short hand for all the things. If you had no idea what this device is for, then the extra explanation would probably be welcomed and saying "quality" would mean next to nothing to that person. Same for other tangible items; but for things like "quality" of life that is very much opinionated. If you want to avoid the short hand that's fine too, but that doesn't mean everyone who says something is "quality" is coming from a place of emotion. And if you only want a prop, then you are not buying a driver of screws, you are specifically buying a prop--that's a different item, even if it is the same device.
jonahx 2y ago
> There's nothing we can say about a thing with "quality" we couldn't also say by tediously listing every single property it has. The only thing that only "quality" can add is information about what the speaker thinks is good. In most fields (film, painting, music, etc), there are standards -- agreed upon to varying degrees, sometimes almost unanimously, sometimes with only a plurality -- based on objective or almost-objective criteria. In other words, there are "measurable" criteria that expert or even merely good practitioners can agree on. In these cases the word "quality" is often used as a shorthand for possessing these kinds of properties. In this sense, ascribing quality is functionally different from a mere opinion, linguistically and technically. Of course, you can argue that all those experts have no priority over anyone else's opinion -- nevertheless, the usage distinction remains. In addition, I think that point of view is either trivially true (because sure, no we can't ask God to tell us who's right) or meaningless (because there are many differences between experts and non-experts, even if you have contempt for expertise).
- bulatb 2y ago
  Absolutely, "quality" can often be descriptive shorthand for a set of traits. It's also, independently, always a normative judgement. I think mixing them is where the disagreement up and down this thread is coming from. Someone says, "Good cars are fast" and someone says, "Good cars have heated seats," and then the second person says "That car you like must not be fast because it isn't good because the seats aren't heated." Mixing "is" and "ought" like that can be convenient, and separating them is usually pedantic, but the shorthand only makes a mess as soon as anybody starts debating.
- brightlancer 2y ago
  > In most fields (film, painting, music, etc), there are standards -- agreed upon to varying degrees, sometimes almost unanimously, sometimes with only a plurality -- based on objective or almost-objective criteria. In other words, there are "measurable" criteria that expert or even merely good practitioners can agree on. In these cases the word "quality" is often used as a shorthand for possessing these kinds of properties. In this sense, ascribing quality is functionally different from a mere opinion, linguistically and technically. Could that be selection bias, where people who think X is "quality" promote other people who agree and push down those who disagree? At that point, it may be true Agree X has found something objective and measurable, but they're using circular reasoning: these metrics are important because they show "quality", and we know it is "quality" because of those metrics.

by bulatb 2y ago

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Nah. Borrow your grandfather's 50 year old screwdriver after having been afflicted by a set from <insert big box hardware store here> and tell me more about how quality isn't an intrinsic property.

bulatb 2y ago
"Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" are obviously properties of certain screwdrivers, which maybe you don't get with modern ones. I didn't need to say the screwdriver is "quality" to say that. I just had to say what's true. The only thing I'd add by saying "quality" is that I think a screwdriver that "doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" is good, which only tells you something about me. If I'd be happy with a different one that breaks and won't turn screws, I simply wouldn't call the old one "quality" and nothing about either one would change. You might think it's weird if I don't care about a basic thing like whether it turns screws, but maybe I just want a cheap, simple prop for a movie. Maybe it's about a guy whose tools don't work. Maybe I just want the crappy plastic part because it's perfect for some art I'm making. Maybe I bet someone I could break it with a hammer. All that information about me could change what's fit for me to buy, but none of it would change what's true about the product.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Try what I told you, I get the impression you'll learn something in the process.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- 1659447091 2y ago
  > "Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws" are obviously properties of certain screwdrivers, which maybe you don't get with modern ones. I didn't need to say the screwdriver is "quality" to say that. I just had to say what's true. When talking about the "quality" of an items intrinsic properties, it's not about what the person feels, some may wrongly use it in that way, but when using "quality" to describe a screwdriver, then that conveys that it is a device that "Doesn't break" and "actually turns screws". That is not my opinion, it is a fact; it continues to do the exact thing it is suppose to do without issue. I shouldn't have to specify that this device drives screws and doesn't break after one use to someone who knows what a screwdriver is. And who would probably find it condescending or patronizing. Saying it's "quality" is a short hand for all the things. If you had no idea what this device is for, then the extra explanation would probably be welcomed and saying "quality" would mean next to nothing to that person. Same for other tangible items; but for things like "quality" of life that is very much opinionated. If you want to avoid the short hand that's fine too, but that doesn't mean everyone who says something is "quality" is coming from a place of emotion. And if you only want a prop, then you are not buying a driver of screws, you are specifically buying a prop--that's a different item, even if it is the same device.

jonahx 2y ago

> There's nothing we can say about a thing with "quality" we couldn't also say by tediously listing every single property it has. The only thing that only "quality" can add is information about what the speaker thinks is good. In most fields (film, painting, music, etc), there are standards -- agreed upon to varying degrees, sometimes almost unanimously, sometimes with only a plurality -- based on objective or almost-objective criteria. In other words, there are "measurable" criteria that expert or even merely good practitioners can agree on. In these cases the word "quality" is often used as a shorthand for possessing these kinds of properties. In this sense, ascribing quality is functionally different from a mere opinion, linguistically and technically. Of course, you can argue that all those experts have no priority over anyone else's opinion -- nevertheless, the usage distinction remains. In addition, I think that point of view is either trivially true (because sure, no we can't ask God to tell us who's right) or meaningless (because there are many differences between experts and non-experts, even if you have contempt for expertise).

bulatb 2y ago
Absolutely, "quality" can often be descriptive shorthand for a set of traits. It's also, independently, always a normative judgement. I think mixing them is where the disagreement up and down this thread is coming from. Someone says, "Good cars are fast" and someone says, "Good cars have heated seats," and then the second person says "That car you like must not be fast because it isn't good because the seats aren't heated." Mixing "is" and "ought" like that can be convenient, and separating them is usually pedantic, but the shorthand only makes a mess as soon as anybody starts debating.
brightlancer 2y ago
> In most fields (film, painting, music, etc), there are standards -- agreed upon to varying degrees, sometimes almost unanimously, sometimes with only a plurality -- based on objective or almost-objective criteria. In other words, there are "measurable" criteria that expert or even merely good practitioners can agree on. In these cases the word "quality" is often used as a shorthand for possessing these kinds of properties. In this sense, ascribing quality is functionally different from a mere opinion, linguistically and technically. Could that be selection bias, where people who think X is "quality" promote other people who agree and push down those who disagree? At that point, it may be true Agree X has found something objective and measurable, but they're using circular reasoning: these metrics are important because they show "quality", and we know it is "quality" because of those metrics.