Anyone who has tried to compile statistics for a large group of humans has been confronted with the issue of which of a large collection of measurements are the most important. It's useful to remember that how we choose the key data is worth revisiting occasionally. Jordan Ellsberg discusses this issue, and how it was resolved in two very different contexts, in a Slate post called, "The Mathematics of Narcissism," available here.
The two contexts are the decision of the committee writing DSM V to exclude "narcissistic and paranoid personality disorder" from the list of psychiatric diagnoses, and the decision of the authors of the National Research Council's committee ranking graduate schools essentially to throw up their hands instead of agreeing on a single ranking system.
I can think of lots of contexts -- New York City's ranking of its schools with a letter grade comes to mind -- in which this issue could use revisiting. Sometimes the contentious discussion just tells you more than the single grade or ranking does.
Friday
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Here's a link to a series of charts The Atlantic.com has put together titled "10 Ways to Visualize How Americans Spend Money on He...
-
It's still in beta, and not all the data are loaded yet, but even so the website Mapping Gothic France , put together by art historians ...
-
I've mentioned Edward Tufte, the statistician and political scientist before. Now I've read Tufte's 2003 essay "The Cog...
-
Like many other people, I am constantly on the lookout for useful organizing tools. Here are a couple to ponder, and play with, over the T...
-
"Rethinking a Lot: The Culture and Design of Parking," Eran Ben-Joseph's unexpectedly lyrical ode to the humble parking lot, d...
No comments:
Post a Comment