Yeah, I can see that. Unfortunately, “how much should we be scared of him” doesn’t have direct metrics, so we have to come up with proxies of some kind.
Do you have any suggestions that don’t feel cherry-picked? What we likely need is input from some good historians. I don’t think I can escape my recency bias well enough.
the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. The second step is to disregard that which can’t easily be measured or given a quantitative value. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure there is a measure that’s not cherry-picked. Deciding how good a president’s actions are inherently means deciding how bad particular measures are, how to trade them off, and which ones he’s even responsible for. It’s also worse if you’re measuring reactions to him, which several of your measures do; the easiest way for someone to be better on the measure “reactions to X” is not to do X.
the easiest way for someone to be better on the measure “reactions to X” is not to do X
Yes? Just like the easiest way for someone to avoid criminal convictions is to not do crimes. Not a guarantee but it helps.
Ultimately, any metric does need to be contextualized and interpreted. Supposing metrics can be agreed upon, it’s another big step to cross the is-ought gap, even with a shared moral framework.
I agree with another commenter that the original post is a good candidate for adversarial collaboration.
Yeah, I can see that. Unfortunately, “how much should we be scared of him” doesn’t have direct metrics, so we have to come up with proxies of some kind.
Do you have any suggestions that don’t feel cherry-picked? What we likely need is input from some good historians. I don’t think I can escape my recency bias well enough.
See also: McNamara procedure
I’m not sure there is a measure that’s not cherry-picked. Deciding how good a president’s actions are inherently means deciding how bad particular measures are, how to trade them off, and which ones he’s even responsible for. It’s also worse if you’re measuring reactions to him, which several of your measures do; the easiest way for someone to be better on the measure “reactions to X” is not to do X.
Yes? Just like the easiest way for someone to avoid criminal convictions is to not do crimes. Not a guarantee but it helps.
Ultimately, any metric does need to be contextualized and interpreted. Supposing metrics can be agreed upon, it’s another big step to cross the is-ought gap, even with a shared moral framework.
I agree with another commenter that the original post is a good candidate for adversarial collaboration.