Objective Measurement Quotes

Test scores aren't perfect, but having a test score for math or reading or other things that we can objectively measure is a meaningful component that makes a lot of sense.

It is impossible to objectively define how free a market is. This is a political definition. Government is always involved, and those free marketers are as politically motivated as anyone.

Statistics do not convey emotion. They shock us for a minute or two, and then we click again.

If we are to have such a discipline we must have standards, and to get our standards under existing conditions we must have criticism.

When it comes to exploring the mind in the framework of cognitive neuroscience, the maximal yield of data comes from integrating what a person experiences - the first person - with what the measurements show - the third person.

Most problems, decisions, and performances are multidimensional, but somehow the results have to be reduced to a few key indicators which are to be institutionally rewarded or penalized... The need to reduce the indicators to a manageable few is based not only on the need to conserve the time (and sanity) of those who assign rewards and penalties, but also to provide those subject to these incentives with some objective indication of what their performance is expected to be and how it will be judged... key indicators can never tell the whole story.

Some coaches believed they could judge a player's performance simply by watching it. In this they were deeply mistaken. The naked eye was an inadequate tool for learning what you needed to know to evaluate baseball players and baseball games. Think about it. One absolutely cannot tell, by watching, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter. The difference is one hit every two weeks. The difference between a good hitter and an average hitter is simply not visible-it is a matter of record

None of us are going to fix governance; it may just be beyond repair. But you can fix capitalism. And the reason you can fix capitalism - It is inherently numerical, and as a result, it is inherently objective. It can be done objectively.

The ranking never lies.

The difference in being a good soldier and actor is that in the Air Force, you see results, and our worth is defined by numbers. As an actor, your results are based on other people's opinions.

In fact, scientific results are a careful attempt to objectively measure reality, and although they may be refined over time, they are always our best hope of getting at the truth.

I don't think it's good, culturally, to base all critical judgments on a single performance.

Numbers don't lie. You always seem to remember your workouts as being a little better than they were. It's good to go back and review what you do.

Measured objectively, what a man can wrest from Truth by passionate striving is utterly infinitesimal. But the striving frees us from the bonds of the self and makes us comrades of those who are the best and the greatest.

Measurements, observations, descriptions can only be considered scientific when they are independently confirmed by other people.

I don't really look at numbers. I couldn't tell you what my home-road stats are or anything like that.

Everybody's got the mindset that everything should be measurable.

Artistic judgments are silly if expressed as dogmas, at least until we get an "artometer" which can measure objectively how many micro-michelangelos or kilo-homers of genius a given artifact has in it.

Well the way we perceive accuracy and what accuracy is statistically are really two different things.

To describe externals, you become a scientist. To describe experience, you become an artist.

If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another - but which one? Differences are crucial.

Stats are something which can't define everything. It could be hiding more things than it shows.