24 ms·

The methodology you linked to might as well be called "how to lie with numbers". The methodology's way to assign numeric values to things doesn't relate to int

The methodology you linked to might as well be called "how to lie with numbers". The methodology's way to assign numeric values to things doesn't relate to intrinsic things about the objects under study, but rather, is a numeric score reflecting the subjective opinion of the reviewer. That something uses numbers doesn't make it objective, and this is a prime example.

lupin_sansei 12y ago
> The methodology's way to assign numeric values to things doesn't relate to intrinsic things about the objects under study Keep reading. They explain the intrinsic things that make up the numbers they assign to the objects. Eg: "Each country’s property rights score is assessed according to the following criteria: 100—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently and quickly. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. There is no corruption or expropriation. 90—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. Corruption is nearly nonexistent, and expropriation is highly unlikely."
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  Yes. Those are subjective criteria, to decide if a country not only "efficiently" settles a matter, but it also does so "quickly". Similarly, there's not a single country where we'd find there is literally "no corruption", which means it's just a subjectively strong form of "nearly nonexistent", or where we'd find there is "no expropriation" ever in its history, as opposed to it just being "highly unlikely" to happen to you. These subjective differences account for the difference between a 90/100 and 100/100. So if your example was that only 10% of the score depends on the difference between a figurative "no corruption" and "nearly nonexistent" corruption, you've done a very poor job convincing me it's an objective test.

lupin_sansei 12y ago

> The methodology's way to assign numeric values to things doesn't relate to intrinsic things about the objects under study Keep reading. They explain the intrinsic things that make up the numbers they assign to the objects. Eg: "Each country’s property rights score is assessed according to the following criteria: 100—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently and quickly. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. There is no corruption or expropriation. 90—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. Corruption is nearly nonexistent, and expropriation is highly unlikely."

NotAtWork 12y ago
Yes. Those are subjective criteria, to decide if a country not only "efficiently" settles a matter, but it also does so "quickly". Similarly, there's not a single country where we'd find there is literally "no corruption", which means it's just a subjectively strong form of "nearly nonexistent", or where we'd find there is "no expropriation" ever in its history, as opposed to it just being "highly unlikely" to happen to you. These subjective differences account for the difference between a 90/100 and 100/100. So if your example was that only 10% of the score depends on the difference between a figurative "no corruption" and "nearly nonexistent" corruption, you've done a very poor job convincing me it's an objective test.