82,968
edits
Tail event: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{freeessay|isda|tail events|}}{{d|Tail event||n|}} | {{freeessay|isda|tail events|}}{{d|Tail event||n|}} | ||
{{L1}}'''Statistics''': Of a range of possible independent events, one whose frequency is three or more [[Normal distribution|standard deviation]]s from the mean. An event with a low [[probability]]. <li> | {{L1}}'''Statistics''': Of a range of possible independent events, one whose frequency is three or more [[Normal distribution|standard deviation]]s from the mean. An event with a low [[probability]]. <li> | ||
'''Work life''': An unwanted outcome to which you weren’t paying attention, | '''Work life''': An unwanted outcome you didn’t expect, to which you weren’t paying attention, and, therefore, for which you don’t think you should be blamed. | ||
</Ol> | </Ol> | ||
We are, as the JC frequently complains, in a swoon to the [[Reductionism|reducibility]] of all things. | We are, as the JC frequently complains, in a swoon to the [[Reductionism|reducibility]] of all things. | ||
This usually involves converting all the irreducible things that we do and that happen to us into numerical [[data]] points. ''Numbers.'' | This usually involves converting all the irreducible things that we do and that happen to us into numerical [[data]] points. ''Numbers.'' Numbers submit easily to aggregation, symbolic manipulation, calculation, and statistical technique: means, modes, medians, standard deviations and so on. | ||
But “things that we do and that happen to us” are not numbers. They are unique, four-dimensional, social constructions. They are [[ineffable]] | But “things that we do and that happen to us” — henceforth, “things” — do not. They are not numbers. They are unique, four-dimensional, social constructions. They exist partly in the universe, partly in our minds, and partly in the immaterial linguistic layer that lies between us. These things are [[ineffable]]. | ||
Reducing them to words involves ''some'' loss of information. Reducing them to numbers even more. This is not a matter of data compression. We cannot restore this information through reverse symbolic operations, the way we can unpack “things” to restore “things that we do and that happen to us” in this essay. We cannot restore the ineffable once we have reduced it to data. We can ''mimic'' it, but that is something different. | |||
Now data, in themselves, are no more naturally [[effable]] than the “things” from which we extract it. But we can run statistical operations on data in a way we cannot on “things”. | |||
Observation: statistical manipulation depends first on reduction. | |||
This is the singular benefit of datafication. To simplify a complex artefact down to a number, or set of numbers, is to ''symbolise'' it. Symbols we can subject to ''symbol processing''. But we have switched domains: we have left the offline and gone online. We have left the domain of the signified and entered that of the signifier. | This is the singular benefit of datafication. To simplify a complex artefact down to a number, or set of numbers, is to ''symbolise'' it. Symbols we can subject to ''symbol processing''. But we have switched domains: we have left the offline and gone online. We have left the domain of the signified and entered that of the signifier. | ||