Useful insights. I think you should expand on the types of measures that support this phenomenon (multiple distinct valid rankings). I think the main criteria you don’t mention is multidimensional weighting. “real-world reasoning”, “teaching”, “learning”, “driving”, and “translating” are all ambiguous in the same way: they comprise many distinct sub-activities, and how they combine (often non-linearly) is the point of disagreement about ranking on a single aggregate dimension.
Your comment made me consider that most experts don’t address the question “who’s better at X fuzzy task, you or your colleague?”
They might dodge the question give face to the other person out of professional diplomacy, or add enough nuance to say “I’m good at X1, they’re good at X2.”
Maybe we’re most likely to see people arguing over “who’s better at X?”, while ignoring or fighting against nuance, in perceived zero-sum signaling contests.
Useful insights. I think you should expand on the types of measures that support this phenomenon (multiple distinct valid rankings). I think the main criteria you don’t mention is multidimensional weighting. “real-world reasoning”, “teaching”, “learning”, “driving”, and “translating” are all ambiguous in the same way: they comprise many distinct sub-activities, and how they combine (often non-linearly) is the point of disagreement about ranking on a single aggregate dimension.
Your comment made me consider that most experts don’t address the question “who’s better at X fuzzy task, you or your colleague?”
They might dodge the question give face to the other person out of professional diplomacy, or add enough nuance to say “I’m good at X1, they’re good at X2.”
Maybe we’re most likely to see people arguing over “who’s better at X?”, while ignoring or fighting against nuance, in perceived zero-sum signaling contests.