Here’s a couple of questions for your Tuesday morning:
Are we anything more than the sum of our experiences?
If we were really good at measurement, and could quantify absolutely everything observable about you, would we then perfectly understand you?
LOL.
David Williams once tried to corner me into admitting that quantitative methods were limited (which is funny because I don’t know a field that offers as many caveats as serious quantitative research). He proposed some avenue of investigation and asked me which quantitative methods I would employ…
“That’s like asking what type of car I would use to drive to the bottom of the ocean,” I replied. “And yet, no one questions the utility of automobiles just because they can’t drive under water.”
ALL language, be it verbal or, as Galileo put it, “the language with which God has written the universe” (i.e. numbers) FLATTEN reality. This compression inherently loses information required for a full understanding.
So the answer to your second question is “No” because any quantifiable measure would inherently leave out some detail. But this isn’t unique quantitative measures. ANY description of you will leave something out.
Because of this your first question is moot. It doesn’t matter if we’re more or less than the sum of our experiences, because we cannot communicate, covey, or otherwise transfer this information to another mortal.
Great response Jeremy!
I beg to differ on your assessment that the first question is moot. Would the only valid reason to answer the question be because we want to communicate, convey, or otherwise transfer?
I also hope you don’t assume my question is based on some hostility to quantitative investigation. I have some (still very ill-formed) thoughts running through my brain right now about design, and I’m hoping people’s answers to these questions can help me think more clearly about research’s role in design (which yours did greatly, thanks again!). More to come as soon as I can express it in an even remotely coherent manner.
Not sure this answers your question Jason, but here is an interesting note on the value currently placed on metrics and measurement…
For those who haven’t heard the big news already, Adobe has acquired Omniture for 1.8 Billion.
http://www.techmeme.com/090915/p77#a090915p77
Quality content, partnered with some helpful metrics are valuable in decision making.
This does not directly related to your question, about if we can quantify an individual, but there are some things that individuals do that we can obviously quantify which give us insights into things like marketing, instruction, and design.
Adobe senior vice president Paul Weiskopf said the deal will allow Adobe to merge the “art” of developing and delivering content with the “science” of measuring the impact of that content.
Clint, I can’t think of a better person to answer this question than you, because companies like Omniture illustrate some of what I struggle with. Again, no hostility intended – but how (as Mr. Weiskopf stated) is gathering data “science”? We’re drowning in data – more than we could ever use. And yet a common solution I hear when something goes wrong is to ask for more data. The science I am familiar with, and respect greatly, has little use for data by itself, unless that data is interpreted by theory, models, or at least a good hypothesis. As Jeremy reminded us, the most careful qualitative research tempers itself with strict controls. Yet most of what I have floated to me is a bunch of conveniently gathered data, masquerading as research because it’s expressed in numbers.
I know web analytics is an area close to your heart, so I really mean it when I say I can’t think of a better person to answer my question than you. Help me, Obi-Clint-Kenobi; you’re my only hope!
(Caveat: I’m neither scientific nor quantitatively analytical; my training is in humanities, as will most likely become very obvious very soon.)
Are we anything more than the sum of our experiences?
I think so. I’ll start off by saying that to me the word “experience” has an acted-upon connotation; my experiences are more what happens to me than what I do. But regardless of the definition, two people who have the same set of experiences (growing up in an alcoholic home, for example) frequently interpret and react to those experiences in entirely different ways – leading me (as a Christian and specifically a Mormon) to point to the existence of a soul that is “pre-programmed,” in a way. Any mother will tell you that children are born with already-formed personalities; my thinking is that if we’re already distinct individuals before we’ve even had any (mortal) experiences, how can we be only the sum of our experiences?
If we were really good at measurement, and could quantify absolutely everything observable about you, would we then perfectly understand you?
I find myself vacillating on this question. If by “absolutely everything observable” you do mean everything – that science would have found a way to read our thoughts, completely scan our memories, measure every personality-influencing factor that exists (a la Myers-Briggs or Keirsey and including things like serotonin and exactly how much love you received as a child), plus analyze those experiences, then – it’s a maybe plus, leaning toward probably. But if by “absolutely everything observable” you’re including only external factors, then nope, I don’t think so.
P.S.: I agree with Jason that an answer of “no” to the second question doesn’t render the first question moot.
As an observation I would think that in this walk on Earth most of us may be living less than the sum of our experiences. I would go back to my youth and do some things different, and there are things I do now that repeat the mistakes of the past. If I could learn every lesson to my advantage for the next experience perfectly every time then perhaps I would be greater than the sum of my experience. It seems I need many similar experiences to learn on lesson.
Yet I agree with Sylvia that we have innate gifts that may help us to make the most of each moment. Now I do see the possibility to know everything about someone and understand them perfectly. I try to do that with my life and I am much better than a month after I had first meet her. I believe that as intelligent beings we have the ability to “size up our opponents,” and I would add any person. Some are better at this than others. I do believe that God understands us perfectly. Whether He does that through measurements or experience I don’t know. The trick is learning how He does that.