not really theory, or a text, or a complex concept, but i’ve had unusual luck treating statistical brainworms in organisations by referencing the McNamara fallacy; particularly the opening quote from the Wikipedia article:
But when the McNamara discipline is applied too literally, the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. The second step is to disregard that which can’t easily be measured or given a quantitative value. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. The fo[u]rth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist. This is suicide.
— Daniel Yankelovich, “Interpreting the New Life Styles”, Sales Management (1971)[2]
i guess they don’t normally think of the process in — or consequences of — a purely quantitative worldview, and the format of this argument seems to click something into place.
sprinkle some Goodhart’s law and Edward Bernays into the conversation for added effect. Bernays’s work is a great example of how social sciences can be used to great effect for all of the shittiest reasons.
not really theory, or a text, or a complex concept, but i’ve had unusual luck treating statistical brainworms in organisations by referencing the McNamara fallacy; particularly the opening quote from the Wikipedia article:
i guess they don’t normally think of the process in — or consequences of — a purely quantitative worldview, and the format of this argument seems to click something into place.
sprinkle some Goodhart’s law and Edward Bernays into the conversation for added effect. Bernays’s work is a great example of how social sciences can be used to great effect for all of the shittiest reasons.