Quoting numbers, whether denominated in dollars, deaths or whatever, has always been a favourite way of adding weight to an argument.
Metrics are gamed in order to increase (or decrease) a given number so as to support an argument, boost a political view, trigger a linked payout or justify a proposed policy or course of action.
The modified metric elevates the case of the proposer above the merely subjective/ rhetorical and lends an ‘objective’ weight to their argument. If, over time, the narrative can be sculpted so that the metric becomes synonymous with something good (or bad), all the better. In this way GDP growth became a proxy for progress – a relation still frequently implied in mainstream discourse.
For those with the requisite level of agency, the rules for the collection of a metric can be changed, often subtly without anyone noticing. Pre-change and post-change numbers can be plotted on the same graph.
The spotlight metric – (i.e. the core metric used at a given time to drive/ justify policy etc) can be changed to suit the convenience of the moment.
This traditional art of meretricious metric management has been substantially boosted by the rise of behavioural economics as a ‘discipline’. Nudge units have become super-users for the emerging metrics-scuplting industry. What started as well-intended, often subtle interventions to prompt towards marginal socially-desired behaviour modifications has become a hothouse for heavy handed authoritarian intervention – creating fear as the primary motivating force. Again this is not a new phenomenon, but it has a new face courtesy of social media and the ability of super-digitised communications to facilitate intrusion.
The two ‘industries’ are mutally supporting. As those with power become habituated to nudging the precariat into compliance, they create a series of ‘testimonials’ for the metric-sculpting industry. Big-data collectors and organisers had become used anyway to using data to direct marketing activity; using it to direct the rest of our lives must seem a natural and logical step.
So, how to stay upbeat when agency is hard to come by?
First give yourself permission to be sceptical or hesitant. If you feel like you are being bounced into something or bullied (with or without stats) let it bring out your bloody-minded side. Take your time to decide what you think, and what actions are best for you and yours.
Second, value the subjective. Don’t let others gaslight you into devaluing your own lived experience and that of those close to you. We are all subject to confirmation bias so this is not a call to be intransigent in your views come what may. But it is an encouragement to take your time.
Third, keep your personal energy close to you. The longer the chain between you and the sources of goods, services and emotions important to you, the less agency you are likely to have. Preference local and familial connections. Beware neutral professional gatekeepers (including fact checkers).
Fourth, in so far as you have control over your own data, keep that as close to yourself as you can too.
Fifth, indulge yourself in essential shared pleasures. Its a bumpy journey right now, we need to enjoy the ride as it were. (For clarity I mean music, arts, food etc.)
Finally its worth noting that even if metrics can be gamed, just getting environmental or wellbeing measures on political dashboards can be a progressive step and help reshape the prevailing narrative over time.
Teaser photo credit: https://www.freeimages.com/photo/statistical-table-1425102