O.G. Rose | Incentives to Problem-Solve by O.G. Rose @O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel | Uploaded May 2024 | Updated October 2024, 1 day ago.
Data doesn’t seem like it can be truly preventative, only reactionary or preparatory, for we cannot collect data about what hasn’t happened to stop from happening the thing that the data is about and quantifying. Furthermore, preventive measures are at an existential and empirical disadvantage to reactionary measures, for not only do preventive measures fail to create evidence that “they worked” as do reactionary measures, but preventative measures also fail to create existential certainty that “there is/was no problem.” If I keep something bad from ever happening (and hence from ever being “something bad”), I don’t ever experience that “something bad” ceasing to be (“something bad”), and so I never experience certainty that the “something bad” even existed and/or ceased existing. When there is prevention, there can be more existential uncertainty compared to when problems aren’t kept from coming into existence, only solved after they manifest. The problem-solver can thus have more existential certainty and “sense of accomplishment” than the problem-preventer, who must wrestle with more existential uncertainty and less of “a sense of accomplishment” and/or “sense of doing anything” (say in the case of the philosopher). Furthermore, in the eyes of the society, the problem-solver can receive more praise and respect because there is more “evidence” that the problem-solver has indeed “solved a problem,” while the problem-preventer doesn’t allow evidence to come into existence that “a problem was solved,” and so never presents the public “empirical evidence” that the problem-solver is valuable. Thus, problem-solving is easily praised over problem-preventing: the incentives favor the reactionaries. And so the world turns.
For the Full Piece:
ogrose.substack.com/p/incentives-to-problem-solve
On Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/incentives-to-problem-solve-bbc853bd95fc
For more by O.G. Rose:
og-rose.com
Photo by Armand Khoury
Data doesn’t seem like it can be truly preventative, only reactionary or preparatory, for we cannot collect data about what hasn’t happened to stop from happening the thing that the data is about and quantifying. Furthermore, preventive measures are at an existential and empirical disadvantage to reactionary measures, for not only do preventive measures fail to create evidence that “they worked” as do reactionary measures, but preventative measures also fail to create existential certainty that “there is/was no problem.” If I keep something bad from ever happening (and hence from ever being “something bad”), I don’t ever experience that “something bad” ceasing to be (“something bad”), and so I never experience certainty that the “something bad” even existed and/or ceased existing. When there is prevention, there can be more existential uncertainty compared to when problems aren’t kept from coming into existence, only solved after they manifest. The problem-solver can thus have more existential certainty and “sense of accomplishment” than the problem-preventer, who must wrestle with more existential uncertainty and less of “a sense of accomplishment” and/or “sense of doing anything” (say in the case of the philosopher). Furthermore, in the eyes of the society, the problem-solver can receive more praise and respect because there is more “evidence” that the problem-solver has indeed “solved a problem,” while the problem-preventer doesn’t allow evidence to come into existence that “a problem was solved,” and so never presents the public “empirical evidence” that the problem-solver is valuable. Thus, problem-solving is easily praised over problem-preventing: the incentives favor the reactionaries. And so the world turns.
For the Full Piece:
ogrose.substack.com/p/incentives-to-problem-solve
On Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/incentives-to-problem-solve-bbc853bd95fc
For more by O.G. Rose:
og-rose.com
Photo by Armand Khoury
