
Is Nuance Overrated? - benbreen
http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Nuance-Overrated-/232771/
======
x3n0ph3n3
No, it's a critical part of determining fact from fiction. This article is
absurd.

> It is not the job of theory to verbally reproduce the complexity of the
> world.

Yes, _it is_. That's what a theory is -- a verbal/symbolic model meant to
account for the complexity of the world. I think this guy just doesn't like
rigor and would rather apply blanket statements about the world without having
to back them up with actual data.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
>a verbal/symbolic model meant to account for the complexity of the world

I think you and I have very different notions of the word "model." Rational
spherical cows in a vacuum may not be precise or nuanced, but that doesn't
make them _inaccurate_ , and the simplified view is a useful model for
learning about big-picture concepts. It's true that it won't catch every
corner case, and when you're making decisions about human beings sometimes
that's dangerous, but there's value at every level of granularity. Looking at
each grain of sand and learning everything about the rock it came from will
let you put it in the perfect place, but you'll never build a sandcastle that
way, and if you want to reshape the whole beach you'll need yet another level
of focus.

Generalization is a good thing. It's powerful. Humans got where we are by
spotting patterns - not because everything matches the pattern perfectly all
the time, or even ever, but because you can see general commonalities and
start to abstract them away into something that can be reasoned about.

If there's one theory that explains more of the detail and variation in the
world than another, at a finer granularity, without giving up generality, then
yes, it's clearly a superior theory. But throwing out highly general theories
just because they aren't perfect is intellectually lazy.

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
Sociology is full of chaotic systems, so slight deviations in the premises can
have wide effects on the outcome of the system you are describing.

I would replace your cow analogy with a 2-pendulum analogy. Depending on the
nuances of what is being observed, a small change in the inputs of your system
can create dramatically different behaviors. It's important to account for how
you define your initial conditions and variables so that you don't end up with
a model that matches early in a simulation but ultimately diverges into
something that looks nothing like what can be observed in the world.

~~~
karmakaze
I don't buy the 2-pendulum analogy. Nuance, as I read in the article, is about
detection of ever decreasing observed quantities ad nauseam. It would be fine-
grained discussion of the non-chaotic ranges of said pendulum. Basically a
pissing contest, which is as good as any, but still just that. Once it goes
beyond any practical use, has no more value.

------
pluma
I think this "discovery" is less about nuance in general and more about nuance
in sociology. But that, again, would require some nuance.

Relevant XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/451/](https://xkcd.com/451/)

~~~
gala8y
[https://xkcd.com/915/](https://xkcd.com/915/) too.

------
hcurtiss
The paper underpins the political philosophy of President Dwayne Elizondo
Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

------
venomsnake
When you make something a metric, people will game the system. Nothing new.
Nuance is a tool, and should not be a goal.

------
MaysonL
AKA: bikeshedding is a waste of time.

