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.
The mega-nudge
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…
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
