juliet's tomb

Quantifying subjectivity

08/09 2023

I recently read Jonna Bornemark's 'Det omätbaras renässans' The renaissance of the immeasurable, where she discusses the unsustainable and unrealistic nature in the trend of our current society (especially in Sweden) to measure everything relative what we can quantify in numbers. Consider the care of the elderly. Can we quantify what constitutes good quality care? Because right now we do in Sweden, specifically by measuring the number of times that we give patients showers, or if they have eaten, or if they have engaged in social activities. Bornemark says that this is a fundamental mistake: we cannot quantify certain things, especially those tied to the human condition and experience.

Most of the book, however, is based on the exploration of three philosophers given the framework of the phenomenological tradition where the subject and her experience is primary in relation to this fact, and it spends most of this time trying to convince us of this fact. This, as a byproduct, creates a very complex ontology where we have to accept a dichotomy between 'knowing' and 'not-knowing' that is connected through the subjectivity of experience in relation to the cosmos in order to even have the practical discussion of the role that quantifiable means play in our current society. This, I think, is an unnecessary complication. Most of the problems, and its solution, can be explained through the term 'empathy' without any of the ontological baggage; however, that explanation is two-fold.

Firstly let's discuss the actual term itself. 'Empathy' is used intentionally broad here. I consider it simply to be the attempt to understand somebody else's or some other abstract point-of-view. It needs not have its basis in postulating a duality in the mind, it could simply be the evolutionary byproduct of cooperation, as Tomasello argues (in this book among others), in that by allowing recursive mind-reading it also enabled better cooperation for early humans. This then organically evolved to be more and more complex, which in turn allowed for more complex social relationships, which as a byproduct allowed for things like storytelling and reflections on imaginary things. I'm getting off-topic. The point is that empathy here is simply a byproduct of our ability and need to cooperate in social situations, which many of our cognitive faculties seem to derive from ¹.

With that definition let's consider the cause of the problem, namely why it has arisen in the first place, I don't think we need to look further than a social cause: namely that we introduced it gradually because it seemed to alleviate any of the individual burden and responsibility of decision. By having everything meticulously documented doctors and caretakers can avoid getting sued, and having the trial end up in a 'he said, she said'-type of argument. It in other words makes it easier for individuals to maintain a social standing by lessening the possibility of failure in high-stake environments. Failure, most of us know, is a very scary thing, and we instinctively want to avoid it. Particularly failures which affect our social standing, I don't think it is a coincidence that public speaking trumps the fear of death in polls. This is supported by research like Carol Dweck's, where she observed a distinct difference in mindset in individuals who looked at failures as a reflection of themselves and their ability to learn, compared to those who looked at failures as a lesson to be learned.

With that as our base we can then try to form a solution to the problem of modern society relying on quantifiable data to measure quality in areas where there are no quantifiable means. The solution, I think, can be presented simply (but of course is not easy to put into practice): we need to better educate people to be empathetic and feel responsibility to the society where they live in. This is not something new, in fact, it is the same point which Theodore Roosevelt made in his speech 'The Labor Question' (available in full here). If we have a society with individuals who are empathetic, feel responsibility for the people around him/her, and who aren't afraid to take that responsibility, I think that the rest of it will follow. If I am correct in that this over-reliance on quantifiable data is a result of fear of responsibility/accountability then it will naturally dissipate when that changes. This connects with what Bornemark talks about in the last chapter, that our current society needs more people educated in the humanities in positions of power, an argument which I agree with but not its connotations to affirmative action. In order to produce that change in individuals we have to start with a more fleshed-out educational system that harbors first and foremost a curiosity for intellectual endeavors and other people, or in other words, empathy. Heck, even art could be said to be an empathic endeavor: Hemingway famously had only two rules of writing (available in full here):

1. OBSERVE: "If you get a kick out of it [him jumping], remember back until you see exactly what the action was that gave you that emotion"
2. PRACTICE EMPATHY: "As a man you know who is right, and who is wrong. As a writer, you should not judge. You should understand."

A society based on empathetic individuals who don't shirk from the hardness of life, while undeniable an almost unattainable utopia, is an ideal worth striving for. Not only to alleviate the concerns regarding the quantification of subjectivity, but in creating a healthier society through the hard work of its individuals.