The Need to Quantify

[Tom Paine]

We try to quantify everything. We are deluged by exams, tests, performance ratings, statistics which are in the end meaningless; we quantify intelligence, learning, wisdom, again, everything. Where does this need, this drive, to quantify come from? This urge to ensure we can quantify everything? Does it stem from believing that quantifying something means we understand or can understand it? Or is it a more primitive thing, that quantification occurs because its a matter of proving superiority?

[Sammur-amat]

Its a more primitive thing; its a matter of proving superiority?

I think you answer this one yourself Grim..

[Maron]

I believe it is the last thing you mentioned. A little healthy competition will inspire most to perform better than they would under other circumstances. The desire to feel superior to others is shared by everyone...at least a little bit. That score or rating, and that feeling of superiority are incentives to put forth a greater effort.

[PacSubCom]

Everything counts in large amounts.

[Tom Paine]

So if its inter-human competition why do we quantify that with which we cannot compete? Say, interstellar distances? Is that a matter of quantification implying mastery?

[Fenris]

We try to quantify everything. We are deluged by exams, tests, performance ratings, statistics which are in the end meaningless; we quantify intelligence, learning, wisdom, again, everything. Where does this need, this drive, to quantify come from? This urge to ensure we can quantify everything? Does it stem from believing that quantifying something means we understand or can understand it? Or is it a more primitive thing, that quantification occurs because its a matter of proving superiority?

Bureaucracy.

Say, interstellar distances? Is that a matter of quantification implying mastery?

This is another question though. the quantification of interstellar distance is something useful in the realm of knowledge and science, even if we cannot achieve it, it leads to other knowledge.

[Tom Paine]

Bureaucracy.

We have wanted to quantify things for years. Money is quantification of worth by artificial means. Is that bureaucracy?

This is another question though. the quantification of interstellar distance is something useful in the realm of knowledge and science, even if we cannot achieve it, it leads to other knowledge.

So quantification depends on what is quantified?

[Fenris]

We have wanted to quantify things for years. Money is quantification of worth by artificial means. Is that bureaucracy?

To a certain extent, yes. But I was more referring to the habit of quantifying EVERYTHING even when it doesn't serve a purpose.

So quantification depends on what is quantified?

Quantifying intelligence and quantifying the quantity of ressource necessary for the realisation of a project, for example, while they are two examples of quantification, are two very different matters in regard of the problem you raised in your first post.

There is the quantification that serves a purpose, and the... "overquantification".

[Tom Paine]

To a certain extent, yes. But I was more referring to the habit of quantifying EVERYTHING even when it doesn't serve a purpose.

But that cannot stem from bureaucracy; bureaucracy stems from it, it developes around and developes the drive for quantification. Which came first, a quantifying agency (bureaucracy) or the drive to quantify...

Quantifying intelligence and quantifying the quantity of ressource necessary for the realisation of a project, for example, while they are two examples of quantification, are two very different matters in regard of the problem you raised in your first post.

There is the quantification that serves a purpose, and the... "overquantification".

So we're driving at neccessary and unneccessary quantification here, that which is useful being neccessary?

[Fenris]

But that cannot stem from bureaucracy; bureaucracy stems from it, it developes around and developes the drive for quantification. Which came first, a quantifying agency (bureaucracy) or the drive to quantify...

But bureaucracy does not stems for it, it IS it.

So we're driving at neccessary and unneccessary quantification here, that which is useful being neccessary?

Focus on the problematic of your first post. Wether one believes this or that is necessary or not, there is unecessary quantification. You ask why there is quantification? That which as a necessity for other means doesn't need other justification, does it? Then why the unecessary quantification? This stems from bureaucracy, which itself is the need to quantification. Bureaucracy is not something useless, but like everything in this world it has it's extremists.

[jane boston]

I believe our focus originated on quality, yet you can only take that so far, when so few actually obtain it. So, we subsequently shifted our focus to quantity, the more the better, hoping that the average, or quantity will raise the quality

[Tom Paine]

I believe our focus originated on quality, yet you can only take that so far, when so few actually obtain it. So, we subsequently shifted our focus to quantity, the more the better, hoping that the average, or quantity will raise the quality

So we work not on the quality-not-quantity idea that is so oft espoused (especially in posts here...) but truly the inability to attain proper quality forces us to attain quantity, meaning we quantify in order to attain quantity?

[Big War Bird]

Blame it on science. That is the field that measures and quantifies everything. It does not feel, it compares.

Religion feels. Ther is no math section in the Bible, other than the Book of Numbers.

[Fenris]

Blame it on science. That is the field that measures and quantifies everything. It does not feel, it compares.

But science has a purpose for quantification, that is no the main problem.

Religion feels. Ther is no math section in the Bible, other than the Book of Numbers.

But why do you try to point quantification as something negative and religion, or the absence of quantification, as something more positive?

My point is quantification is good, over quantification is stupid, just like under quantification or even more the absence of quantification. In such pretty trivial debates, we can already see the manicheism that eventually leads to extremism in my domains, quantification = bad, feeling = good. Thus all quantification = bad, or the vice versa. Apply this to many other domain, make it a hot debate and you will see the extremists rising very quickly. Shades people, shades.

[Big War Bird]

I wasn't trying to say one religion was better than science or that science was bad at all. It is just that we derive from science great value in precision.

After reading your posts I think we are in agreement.

[Fenris]

I wasn't trying to say one religion was better than science or that science was bad at all. It is just that we derive from science great value in precision.

After reading your posts I think we are in agreement.

Alright, I got the wrong impression on your post from the "Blame it on science" which sounded pretty pejorative.

Oh, and religion doesn't "feel". It BELIEVES.

[Big War Bird]

Alright, I got the wrong impression on your post from the "Blame it on science" which sounded pretty pejorative.

Oh, and religion doesn't "feel". It BELIEVES.

Being a recovering religious fanatic, trust me, you can *feel* religion. It can keep you warm at night.

[Fenris]

Being a recovering religious fanatic, trust me, you can *feel* religion. It can keep you warm at night.

That's because you only believe you feel

[Katrina]

Where does this need, this drive, to quantify come from? This urge to ensure we can quantify everything?

There are probably many factors to the need for quantity, however, we do quantify to better ourselves and to further our own self esteem as well as others. Most of this relates to the effect of quantity. The drive can be from your own self expectations, or the relation between your quantity and others, or from the need to please expectations of society. Most often, the result of quantity is pleasure amongst yourself, whether it is a feeling of superiority amongst others, or a feeling of acheivement amongst yourself. The outcome is the drive.

[Ragabash]

Humans have been able to product thoughts and ideas to handle our tasks with complex systems that make our lives easier from the earliest days. I see that our urge to quantify is a product of circumstances rather then anything else.

Urge to quantify might have happened after our ancestors started to trade with other people and they needed a system that would enable more complex trading.

This urge have been in such a big role to our earliest society that it have more affected our ways to think, invent, and tend to distinguish people abilities and skills then those have affected for our urge to quantify.

Of course this is just my theory. :original: