A reader writes concerning American society:
WRT: The Human Enterprise and Measuring the Parts
About the broad definition of Excellence:
Since the measure of excellence is defined and shaped by those within each group, it is constantly in flux, just as the members of the group are constantly in flux. So really, how meaningful can this measurement be, over time?
I think I would hope that excellence wouldn’t so much change direction or definition, as it were, as raise the bar defining excellence. This would definitely be true for those sectors involved in reality; so, for the (forgotten) health sector, the efficacy of the treatments would find the definition of excellence becoming more stringent, but not changing in basic definition: the treatment of the human creature towards relieving it of torment and extending its life.
It is meaningful in that it permits us to compare the sectors of different cultures, presumably employing different operationalities, as to what is the better set of methods and metrics to adapt.
Family sector:
On a broader scale, this would include all of your community. It’s who you live with. It’s who you learn your most important things from. Your family is who makes you into the person you are; those whose attitudes and beliefs seep into your pores and stay with you your entire life. Family teaches you who to be without you even knowing that you’re learning to be part of the group. This is perhaps the most powerful of all the sectors discussed.
The metric here should really be the security of the community, and excellence would be defined as a happy, harmonious group that is free to feed itself, reproduce and care for its young and elderly members without undue anxiety or difficulty.
I agree heartily, and would only add care for the disabled as well – at least for prosperous communities.
Public sector:
Your definition states:
“The metrics in this area include incidence of crime (although this may also be applicable to other sectors), recidivism rates, resolution rates, civil disturbance rates, standard public health measures…”
All of the aforementioned are closed loops: the group creates the law or standard, then measures the rates of infraction of those created laws within the same group. What keeps the group from writing laws solely to “game” the system? If we write laws we know will be highly broken, then we are causing our metrics to reflect a high percentage of infraction. If we write laws that are nonsensical, unneeded or that no one would logically want to break (i.e.– “do as you wish, regardless of consequence), then we measure a very low percentage of infraction. Either way, if those who make the laws also make the metrics to suit themselves, then the system is intrinsically flawed.
An excellent and highly relevant point; I’m surprised that the concept of justice was not brought up, since that’s where I think a claim for objectivity could be made. However, I am not necessarily thinking the sector is measuring itself; I could see this being the subject of an NGO or think-tank, or the dedicated individual, and would be an extremely involved piece of work, because certainly gaming of the system would occur. We’ve seen this recently in the attempts of bureaucrats at the Veteran’s Administration to game the system, sometimes through outright fraud, sometimes in manipulating the system to meet goals of dubious merit. The application of the concept of justice might be the pivotal piece for developing meaningful metrics and definitions of excellence.
“… and incidence of foreign invasions; whether measuring foreign adventuring is relevant is problematic.”
This last is a different animal altogether. It reaches outside of the group and attempts to enforce internal laws & standards on an external group. Never advisable, and usually doesn’t end well for anyone.
The conclusion I was reaching myself, although it’s also difficult to defend the Isolationists of bygone eras, as we are an interconnected system and must admit to influence from around the world. Still, there is a difference in the attempts to influence foreign affairs to better advantage your own society, and the more aggressive foreign adventuring.
Private sector:
“While it is tempting to use money as a metric – and often, it is, in the form of GNP, GDP, and allied metrics – the general economic health of a country is perhaps not entirely captured simply by these metrics, for the metric should also indicate the probable future indicated by various sub-measures…”
These metrics generally rely on averages or mean values. I would add a ratio of instance of poverty to instance of obscene wealth as well. Often, that’s more telling than an average.
“… Excellence: a prosperous citizenry is the traditional sentiment, and, if taken literally to mean everyone, it suffices for a statement.”
Rather than prosperity in the traditional sense, I would say: health, comfort, security and personal happiness. Isn’t that what prosperity is supposed to buy?
Indeed!
Educational sector:
“The educational sector’s responsibility is straightforward. It should prepare students with facts and the ability to make reasoned judgments, and to this mission it should adhere to a study of reality; strictly religious sensibilities should be excluded as they are entirely subjective, and will lead to civil strife in a public setting. Philosophy, while subsumed under religion in some ways, is of educational interest since it asks important questions about reality and the study thereof…”
Maybe that’s what it should do, but since “facts” are defined by the larger society and “truth” is written by the socio-political victor, in reality, the educational sector of any society devolves into a device solely constructed to socialize its members. All “facts” and “truths” are subjective. So whoever prevails within the society gets to define the truths of the day and then impose them on other members of the group. Of course, there are certain practical, mechanical “how-to” courses of study that may prove useful, but in modern societies, these courses of study are still riddled with general opinion and attempts at pure socialization into the general society.
I cannot agree that all facts and truths are defined by a larger society; at least in the physical sciences, a “fact” that fails to correlate with the underlying reality1 will, sooner or later, will be exposed as a falsehood. Naturally, physical sciences are the easy subjects; more difficult are the social sciences, where facts become contingent on states of mentality, which are notoriously difficult to pin down in humans; and when we transition to the religious sector, a “fact” should be, yet rarely is, asserted with the greatest of trepidation: it is the most congruent with your assertion.
“…Metrics should cover the knowledge base and reasoning capabilities of students and citizens.
Excellence is indicated by the continual progression in the efficiencies of everyday activities.”
This is also a closed loop. Those who define the “facts” also define what’s efficient and desirable in a society.
Conclusion:
I agree with your conclusion, so far as it goes. The defined factions are being treated as separate, but they truly cannot be separated. An individual within any society must deal with, and is influenced by, all these factions (and many sub-factions) in a very intricate tangle of imposed beliefs and social behaviors. That influence reaches into the deepest part of a person’s psyche, until the individual ceases to realize that his core truths have been imposed upon him, and only knows that what he perceives his world to be is what it must be. Therein lies the difficulty of defining what “is” and what “is not”. But I guess that’s a discussion for a different time.
If I understand the thrust of the conclusion, I think what I began this thread to explore was just how to best understand these sectors (or factions) by definitions of goals and metrics – all totally ad hoc, as per my usual intellectual methods2. An important element, totally neglected (for reasons of length and impatience), has to do with how these sectors are tangled together, involving questions of hierarchy, dependence, and fuzzy boundaries.
And, of course, the health sector has been completely neglected, not even named! But an exploration of that sector is for another time and place. And, perhaps, writer.
1My apologies to quantum physicists who do not believe in an underlying, objective reality, but without the concept the very idea of science is rather laughable.
2Yes, in case the reader is wondering, my intellectual methods are usually rather laughable.
