skip to Main Content

Abuse of Metrics and Regression of Conscious Mind

1. Applying of metric indicators (in all imagined range of areas of impact that is accessible to measuring) as basic and final for the evaluating of the quality of achievements may be an evidence of the regression of consciousness. It is an expression of such a state of consciousness in which activity and its fruitfulness, efficiency is appreciated by the external, visible manifestations and their accordance to the norms and the standards that are considered as the means of verification, as objective. In this case an initial point for this practice is proposition that metric, quantifying data correlates with the significance and status of the assessed in such way that this correspondence is considered as absolute, since possible variations are slight and thus may be neglected. There is an outcome of the absolutization of visible (as a sequence of the decreasing unawareness or ignorance (intentional or not) of its conditionality), of the consideration of external features, indicators as the evidences for the warranty of quality and ontological status in such way that the latter are considered in this case as the sequence, manifestation of the former. That is not a situation, when indicators are considered as derivative from something, but something as secondary, derivative from some indicators, forms, that are becoming the only actuality.

2. Meanwhile the abusing of metric indicators, quantification is a particular case of judgement about some phenomenon exclusively by visible, by the conformity to some template, cliché (the other examples may be any other sings of status as degrees, titles, dress code, wealth, demonstrated or prescribed identity, face or any other externality in the exaggeration of their proper place). So, bibliometrics and scientometrics are the particular cases of quantifying investigation of some fields of actuality and this case are helpful means for the endeavor of mind to comprehend the world in the variety of the manifestations of reality that may be seen as nonrelated from the first glance. A good example is craniometry, that is helpful for an anthropologist, but may be a deadly mean in case of its taking as the foundation for making decisions about the quality of humans and their fates (as it was in Nazi Germany in the most exaggerated forms among the vanguard societies of the first half of the 20th century, for example); also there are possible other metric means (as KPI, for example, that in case of proper use may be a good mean, but in case of abusing may be a mean for self-destruction of business).

A possible argument against the comparison of the actual and possible outcomes of abusing the craniometrics and abusing the scientometrics may be that the form of scull (of an adult individual) is unchanging by the will of a person, but scientometric indicators are derivation from the individual efforts (let alone the giftedness, since the doubtfulness of the concept for someone), so they may be changed. But the differences between them are only in extent of the near (but not possible far) consequences for an individual and a multitude, because in both cases the foundation for making decision is the conformity to some template (fitting the “Procrustes bed”) with sanctions for those who does not fit the template, as exclusion from the multitude (in any form) or compulsion to conformity; compulsion is a manifestation of violence that may grow in its different forms: physical, psychological, moral, for example.

3. There is possible to outline some implications of such abusing for science and academia. The other moment to note, this formal indicators are features not of science as an intentional endeavor of conscious being for exploration the actuality but of its institutional embodiment, bearer that may be designated as learning, academia, for example, and to the extent that is correlating with the oblivion of the meaning of science (so it is of secondary importance what indicators are considered as significant in the concrete learning communities). A particular case of such oblivion, that is connected with the abusing of metric indicators as basic, in case of academia is its image as of merciless and sweatshop system in which an advance among the others have those, who demonstrate greater measurable performance; that is the ignorance of such dimension of actuality as quality of a result (and in some aspect incomparability of the outcomes by their levels) and a lack of an understanding that any outcome is a manifestation of some underlying process. In case of the orientation exclusively on the visible, external outcome, an internal preliminary component of fruitfulness, internal work become difficult, barely possible, as a sequence of its devaluing, that is reflected on the efficiency itself, on the decreasing of the quality.

A sequence of the endeavor for demonstration of self and recognition as the end in itself is conformity to norms of an environment, imitativeness and stereotypization of the mind, narrowing of its faculties (because even in case of double-thinking for avoiding the possible persecutions the ability of thinking is suffering too as a sequence of wearing the mask). Stereotypization may be accompanied, from the one side, by the desubjectivization, depersonalization of activity and its outcomes that may be represented as independent from the individual minds, whose fruits they are (and this is in connection with this templates and features are considered as definitive), as derivative from the represented in figures volume of work (to which at the possible next step is automatically matching the desirable outcome). From the other side, there is a possible personalization of representations (as objects and its features), that are considered as entities with their own properties and needs, for sustaining of which it is necessary for the conscious beings to conform some template (for the name of an imagined entity), since the sequence of violating of the template may be harming an entity, that is avoiding by the fear of retaliation. In such situation is possible the transfer of responsibility for decision-making (and first of all those are concerning the persons related to such object) on the entity itself (because the norm and rules are considered as objectified and absolutized).

In the role of a representative of the entity, who spoke for its name, guarding for its sustaining, imposing sanctions for violating the borders of permissible may be anyone among those who considers himself or who is considered by others as capable to achieve the imagined indicators and the conformance to the template. The influence on the other individuals is performed by the appeal to such feeling as fear (for the sequences of nonconformance for the requirements), shame (for discrepancy between the self-image and the demanding external image), guilt (in case of interiorization of external norms as the own for inconsistency with the ideal image of self), manipulating by them, and by arguing the steps by the necessity and inevitability for the functioning and existence of the entity, for which the sacrifices are demanded. So, in this case persons, individual consciousness are considered as derivative, as functions of the indicators that are external to them. Their internal world, their autonomy is permissible only to the extent to which it is seen as safe for the existence of the entity. In this case the notion of subject, as an element of the dichotomy “subject-object”, is becoming insignificant. So the principle of moral autonomy is forbidden or non-articulated.

4. Thus, absolutization of metric indicators is simply a particular expression, symptom of much wider process of regression of mind, that may by manifested in different forms. Regression, since metric indicators are the applications of the outcomes of the quantifiable, mathematical description of the World, that is accessible for representing as measurable along with the other possible modes of the representation of the World with the recognizing of limitedness and conditionality of any them. A sequence of the oblivion of the latter is absolutization (exaggeration of the significance), hypostatizing of one of the possible modes of representation of Being, that is perceived as Being itself, narrowing of the operation abilities of mind. Among the possible incentives for regression may be such as will of a decision-maker to exclude subjective factor for achieving an impression of impartiality that may be considered as a warranty of a visible success of an enterprise and that is connected with a wish to avoid a mistake, fault decision, and taking responsibility for them; the other incentives are distrust, inability to see beyond the appearances or a wish (that may be justified by following the obligations) to demonstrate some results despite the possible consequences.

5. All this cases are particular expressions of thoughtlessness, suppression of personal mode of actuality, blindly following to instruction, habit and prejudice. Imagination of facade as foundational, perceiving secondary as primary, violation of balance of principles that is optimal for progression in any particular case are symptoms of a disease of conscious mind, of its regression up to dissolving of personality, society, mind itself.

 

Avatar photo

Nikolay Konstantinov is an independent scholar, lives in Yekaterinburg, Russia. He also was the Associate Professor at the Ural State University of Economics, Yekaterinburg (2012-2017).

Back To Top