= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread, January 11-17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (180)
I don't see any unusual anger.
It's election year, so the usual suspects are already hard at work operating their mud-throwers at max volume and intensity...
What in politics would you consider to be an "objective basis"?
I'm not sure. Perhaps there is very little that can be considered objective, since the two parties have competing definitions of success.
Are you saying there are is no objective way to evaluate a president's performance? Which measures did you use to conclude the following?
Evaluating performance necessarily involves specifying goals and metrics.
If you provide hard definitions of the goals that you're interested in, as well as precise specifications of the metrics, plus a particular weighting scheme for combining performance numbers for multiple goals, well, then you can claim that you are objectively evaluating the performance. The problem is that you're evaluating a very narrow idea of performance, one that involves the goals and the metrics and the weights that you have picked. Other people can (and probably will) say that your goals are irrelevant, your metrics are misleading, and your weights are biased X-)
I listened to my feelings :-P