3 ms·

Crash dummies have made cars safer for women. Perfect is the enemy of good. I know you just threw this in at the end, but "Perfect is the enemy of good" does n

Crash dummies have made cars safer for women. Perfect is the enemy of good. I know you just threw this in at the end, but "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not apply here. I'd argue the better quote would be "Good enough is the enemy of better." NHTSA has been around since 1970 but they didn't start testing with different-sized dummies until 2003. I don't think the author is suggesting that we needed 200 different-sized crash dummies in 1970, but why did it take 33 years to notice that our dummies didn't match most drivers? We could have tested smarter and better and we didn't.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
I read the post as criticising Gates for (1) not being transparent about the models he's using, and, (2) using models that aren't "objective", taken to mean not accurate, and being adopted arbitrarily because of his authority. 1 is a valid point if true, but 2 occupies the bulk of the post. The standard for accuracy appears set too high, illustrated by calling the crash dummy testing process un-objective for having missed a nuance. Worse, the proposed solution to a perceived lack of objectivity is rejecting the system. This is essentially nihilism, whose conflict arises because it rejects any model that isn't perfectly "objective". 33 years is too long to notice an exception to 50% of the population. That, however, doesn't reduce the "objectivity" nor utility of said model. It just means it could have been better. Similarly, valid criticisms are to be had of the Gates models. That does not mean we say it's not objective and dismiss it as the manifestation of a rich man's ego.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  You've missed her point entirely. She's not saying that only "objective" models should be used; she's saying that there's an irreducible subjectivity in the choice of model, and that this needs not to be forgotten. She's not saying that measurements should not be taken; she's saying that we need to discuss what to measure, and make sure that what we're measuring is what we actually want to see improved. Her point is not nihilist in the slightest.
- niels_olson 14y ago
  Those three comments have got to be the shortest path I've seen from global philanthropy through applied math, a debate about modeling, and the original problem of nihilism. <turn to crowd> Internet: please look above for how conversation is supposed to work.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

I read the post as criticising Gates for (1) not being transparent about the models he's using, and, (2) using models that aren't "objective", taken to mean not accurate, and being adopted arbitrarily because of his authority. 1 is a valid point if true, but 2 occupies the bulk of the post. The standard for accuracy appears set too high, illustrated by calling the crash dummy testing process un-objective for having missed a nuance. Worse, the proposed solution to a perceived lack of objectivity is rejecting the system. This is essentially nihilism, whose conflict arises because it rejects any model that isn't perfectly "objective". 33 years is too long to notice an exception to 50% of the population. That, however, doesn't reduce the "objectivity" nor utility of said model. It just means it could have been better. Similarly, valid criticisms are to be had of the Gates models. That does not mean we say it's not objective and dismiss it as the manifestation of a rich man's ego.

ScottBurson 14y ago
You've missed her point entirely. She's not saying that only "objective" models should be used; she's saying that there's an irreducible subjectivity in the choice of model, and that this needs not to be forgotten. She's not saying that measurements should not be taken; she's saying that we need to discuss what to measure, and make sure that what we're measuring is what we actually want to see improved. Her point is not nihilist in the slightest.
niels_olson 14y ago
Those three comments have got to be the shortest path I've seen from global philanthropy through applied math, a debate about modeling, and the original problem of nihilism. <turn to crowd> Internet: please look above for how conversation is supposed to work.