Blog
The continuing delegation of judgment to after-the-fact relativism a la “the data will prove it or not” and the abolition of the notion of beauty is seriously disappointing, and a sign of cultural degeneracy. Nowhere else is this more evident than in the recent puzzling rebranding of a certain automotive manufacturer that has generated a lot of buzz on social media.
There are some shapes that are pleasing to the eye–of most people. There are some that are considered grotesque, disproportionate, plainly ugly–by most people. Or is there any universe in which the Alfa Brera is considered ugly by most people, but the Pontiac Aztec is considered a beautiful, timeless design?
Additionally: years ago we tended to label someone who intentionally wanted to provoke, without any substance backing their provocation, an “edgelord” . Not even a “troll” . Uncool . Try-hard . Cringe . Needy of attention and attention-seeking in a pathetic manner. Many were rushing to give Jaguar the benefit of the doubt–surely, this must have been a stunt. Surely, who are we to judge whether the weird, garishly colored ad and its blatant disconnect with a vehicle is ingenious or plain stupid? “It’s a successful rebranding campaign, because it got everyone to look at it” said others, who rush to use this justification while not affording the same laxity to other publicity stunts, when these don’t align with their prejudices.
The next justification was one that’s very familiar to those us who have spent time in corporate environment: the data prove the success of the campaign. Who are we to judge, when we don’t have the same access to data as those in charge of the campaign? Once again, an all-too-eager abdication of one’s own cognitive capabilities in the name of… what? Intellectual honesty? Not being perceived as judgmental, even when the mind’s eye has already made a snap judgment on whether something (a vehicle’s shape, a color palette, the message being promoted etc.) is pleasing to the eye and to the mind, logically consistent, plainly put, “makes sense”?
Some guy on LinkedIn wrote something to the tune of “Jaguar must have done its research, so they have data to rely on, compared to us, and data will prove or disprove them”.
Data are not always the answer
Data are not always the answer–especially when it’s data about subjective things, such as answers or ratings to the question “do you like this design?” This is why the “social sciences” are claiming to “do science” but what they are really trying to do is nail a jello to the wall; the “ground truth” they are trying to measure and desperately trying to make universal, perennial statements about is always shifting. But these matters are not like the laws of physics; they are not always constant, ever present and inviolate. Also see: replication crisis and physics envy .
Additionally, here are some more questions we should be asking whenever we want to rely on data, or whenever anyone is trying to bamboozle us with references to data as the ultimate justification:
- What data were gathered?
- How were the data gathered?
- Were the data gathered in a manner that didn’t “direct” the outcome?
- Was the analysis of the data done correctly?
- Were the generated insights “toeing a party line” or were they objectively presented without a hidden agenda?
And, most importantly: were the data gathered with an honest intention to reach some understanding? Or were they gathered in order to bolster and already-made decision by some empire-builder or ESG-target-chasing functionary-du-jour, to tick a box, to get that rating or certification, to receive that funding, etc.?
Data are often used as a cudgel
Data are often used in organizations as an instrument of persuation and as a promoted or agendas. Data are used to promote the interests of certain members of an organization; interests that do not necessarily align with what’s best with the organization’s best interests or those of its stakeholders and shareholders, regardless of the time horizon in which we evaluate the benefit.
Why are we still pretending that larger organizations are not often feudal-like systems, in which there are (also, but not exclusively) middle-manager sycophant “Čiflik managers” ready to “toe the party line” to hit targets and profile themselves for promotions?
Most of us are willing to bemoan how corrupt and servile political systems are. In certain national cultures it is a national pastime, a veritable rite of pasage of proclaiming one’s fit with a group, to de-facto complain about political systems and those employed by them. And yet, the same vitriol and skepticism is often not expressed when it comes to non-political organizations; somehow, those organizations are implicitly assumed to not be beholden to the same aspects of Homo Sapiens that make any organization, political or not, a mess of intertwined, tangled, conflicting interests between the personal and the professional, between different layers of its hierarchy.
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, Mr or Ms Corporate Animal, but any larger organization is a political system just like those in governments. It is likely bristling with personalities and behaviors similar to (or the exact same as) the ones you decry in the public sector.
Homo Sapiens gonna Homo Sapiens
The problem, however, is not with the people. The people are what they are; obedient, helpful, manipulative, rebellious, self-interested, altruistic, and so much more. Everyone is a mix of different characteristics that come to the fore depending on the circumstances. In organizations, how circumstances are handled is driven by incentives. And that is where the problem lies: the incentives.
When the incentives are backed by the intent to provoke, to get social media views, to get the public chickens clucking, for a brand to “become relevant again”, for a brand to “be progressive”, to “copy nothing” (utter nonsense, the cabin glass is reminiscent of the A35 Supra!)…
…then you get ugliness peddled as progressiveness, the brutal and the grotesque being peddled as something unique, special, faultless, uncriticizable etc., and you get to label the critics any way you want (see also “Argument from Intimidation” ).
Trust your gut and your snap judgment, or learn to do so, if it’s a muscle that has atrophied after years of relativism, learned helplessness and bamboozlement by “the experts” or pundits. Trust the data only after you’ve learned about how and why they were gathered, analyzed, distilled and presented.
