Science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics all exist in a quantitative space in this age. I suppose it is a bit superfluous mentioning such as we are in fact in the age of information. Notions aside, understanding how we can contribute to these spaces is imperative. We reference ideas such as machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI), and bots (chatbots, conversational interfaces) quite often as we explore new ways to start or even facilitate the conversation. What often becomes the fear is the idea of replacement, attrition of humanistic approaches to valid spaces in which interaction provides value and content for both sender and receiver.
Validating the Approach
To mitigate the impact of the detraction deployment on these value interactions, we must strive, all included to understand and value the platforms available to catalyze said experiences. As we look on to validating our approach it is currently a wavering state, deciding where and what to put time into is often challenging when there are so many new experiences to explore. Validating interest with passion as we learn can be quite detrimental, thought aligning strengths through layers of knowledge that is not always directly correlated, is intuition.
Simply ignoring the existence of any of these entities and solutions aligns us with a much steeper delve than we should naturally align with, or so the fit would say. If your opinion is that these technologies are existing in a space where you will be unaffected, you can certainly keep focusing on what you are doing, though you may want to develop extreme niche talents to align with components that become intrinsic with your doings.
Advocating for Qualitative
The idea of such is advocating for qualitative information, understanding that alone numbers exist as a strong measure, but without a story are not as impactful as the values aligned with them. Decisions currently and forth, will be linked with the balance of such a consideration, thinking of what variables align correctly and which are forsaken for focus. For as long as our modern existence has occurred, even dating back to 50,000 B.C.E (Early counting), analysis has used quantitative information to solve our problems. In many contexts, nature is itself a conclusion of such a topic, even without the governance of man.
It is human, to validate these statistics with empathy, stories, and journeys — to seek more than we are given in each set of data and understand how deriving a solution has to an impact. If you are still focusing on what you are doing through these processes, it leaves little time for how & why instinctually we must step back in these moments and accommodate the thought for understanding.
Metrics exist across an array of our daily interactions, knowingly or not, we are data points across the graphs of society, as we make decisions, follow paths, and connect with information. If true, we must be intrigued in understanding not only how we can use such to make better decisions, but how to relay it effectively to make the ethical ones. The qualitative nature of data brings the idea of values, morality, and ethics to light. Finding quantitative information alone can be overturned simply with the application of journeys.
It is our choice, to align information with valid inputs, or to create complex structures that alienate humanity from the information. Seeing the value in the presence of both entities can be favorable in presenting ethical solutions. Considering the many obstacles that may accompany a set of quantitative information, we can validate our choices, applying that of the qualitative sense. One of the most successful means of defining these points is simply by listening, paying attention to our channels, and applying the logic from those interactions across the various endpoints in which we provide.