It’s somewhat striking that you frame your top-level advice as a comparative:
I recommend everyone cut this habit down ~90% in aggregate for topics they deem important, replacing the great majority of second-order evaluations with first-order evaluations.
People surely differ in their current behaviour, and need different adjustments. So why not simply specify what you think the optimal ratio of first- to second-order evaluations is?
My take: not infrequently, as here, comparatives are more precise than first-order evaluations.
You’re calling attention to a dimension that people may not have thought about much, and certainly don’t have established metrics for. If you said “people should be 9⁄10 on the use of first-order evaluations and 3⁄10 on the use of second-order evaluations”, you don’t know how people will interpret that. It’s well within the realm of possibility that some readers will nod along and say “yes that’s how I do things already”, even when you would assess their actions quite differently.
By using a comparative, you get the benefit of a common reference point—how much things are already being done. People will have a sense of this even if they don’t know how to measure it. You get to specify that people should cut it down by 90%, which is concrete and can surface disagreements.
I do happen to think you’re quite wrong in suggesting cutting it down by ~90%, although I agree with the directional nudge vs current practice. I guess that at the moment second-order comparisons comprise the large majority of communication, and it would be better if they comprised a slightly smaller majority—perhaps tripling the amount of use first-order evaluations get.
It’s somewhat striking that you frame your top-level advice as a comparative:
People surely differ in their current behaviour, and need different adjustments. So why not simply specify what you think the optimal ratio of first- to second-order evaluations is?
My take: not infrequently, as here, comparatives are more precise than first-order evaluations.
You’re calling attention to a dimension that people may not have thought about much, and certainly don’t have established metrics for. If you said “people should be 9⁄10 on the use of first-order evaluations and 3⁄10 on the use of second-order evaluations”, you don’t know how people will interpret that. It’s well within the realm of possibility that some readers will nod along and say “yes that’s how I do things already”, even when you would assess their actions quite differently.
By using a comparative, you get the benefit of a common reference point—how much things are already being done. People will have a sense of this even if they don’t know how to measure it. You get to specify that people should cut it down by 90%, which is concrete and can surface disagreements.
I do happen to think you’re quite wrong in suggesting cutting it down by ~90%, although I agree with the directional nudge vs current practice. I guess that at the moment second-order comparisons comprise the large majority of communication, and it would be better if they comprised a slightly smaller majority—perhaps tripling the amount of use first-order evaluations get.
Hi Owen,
My interpretation is that Gregory is arguing for greater precision in comparative statements, rather than arguing against comparisons in general.