I took a Data Science course at my uni this year. A full semester of learning how these guys can glean data, which is a horrifying conversation, but also how to use that data once you have it. Its not just the media that misframes it but also the agencies that collect the data and the customers who hire these agencies. The only valuable thing that I gleaned from the classes was that if you can show a link between sets then you can theorize a trend, with the caveat that you say "correlation does not equal causation" while you discuss the link to absolve you of any potential bias. Sure, there are some tools to show you how closely those sets are linked, but no further exploration to verify the link outside the dataset itself. This works to a great extent when dealing with objective values, such as equipment failures or optimization, but when you approach data that is subjective, such as a humans actions or events, and apply the same rules/tools you completely neglects a pile of variables and thus the outcomes and results are on loose terms (whether intentional or not). They then present these flimsy results to the public as fact and people eat these facts up. Essentially they treat us like machines that have a predictable outcome from any given influence. There is something to say in regards to the rule of crowds but I would argue that the crowd is still made up of subjective and unique individuals who at any moment can defy the movement of the crowd and forge a new path, and with that presents an opportunity that could move the crowd in an unforeseen direction, better known as leaders. We are all being monitored for these data scientists to tell corporations and politicians how to best go about rolling out their plans as effectively and efficiently as possible, and if we dont question their methods or intentions then were no better than sheep being corralled into any pen the shepherds want.

I took a Data Science course at my uni this year. A full semester of learning how these guys can glean data, which is a horrifying conversation, but also how to use that data once you have it. Its not just the media that misframes it but also the agencies that collect the data and the customers who hire these agencies. The only valuable thing that I gleaned from the classes was that if you can show a link between sets you could theorize a trend, with the caveat that you say "correlation does not equal causation" while you discuss the link to absolve you of any potential bias. Sure, there are some tools to show you how closely those sets are linked, but no further exploration to verify the link outside the dataset itself. This works to a great extent when dealing with objective values, such as equipment failures or optimization, but when you approach data that is subjective, such as a humans actions or events, they apply the same rules and tools which completely neglects a pile of variables and thus they "quantify" their outcomes and results on loose terms (whether intentional or not) and present these flimsy results to the public as fact. Essentially they treat us like machines that have a predictable outcome from any given influence. There is something to say in regards to the rule of crowds but I would argue that the crowd is still made up of subjective and unique individuals who at any moment can defy the movement of the crowd and forge a new path, and with that presents an opportunity that could move the crowd in an unforeseen direction, better known as leaders. We are all being monitored for these data scientists to tell corporations and politicians how to best go about rolling out their plans as effectively and efficiently as possible, and if we dont question their methods or intentions then were no better than sheep being corralled into any pen the shepherds want.

I took a Data Science course at my uni this year. A full semester of learning how these guys can glean data, which is a horrifying conversation, but also how to use that data once you have it. Its not just the media that misframes it but also the agencies that collect the data and the customers who hire these agencies. The only valuable thing that I gleaned from the classes was that if you can show a link between sets you could theorize a trend, with the caveat that you say "correlation does not equal causation" while you discuss the link to absolve you of any potential bias. Sure, there are some tools to show you how closely those sets are linked, but no further exploration to verify the link outside the dataset itself. This works to a great extent when dealing with objective values, such as equipment failures or optimization, but when you approach data that is subjective, such as a humans actions or events, they apply the same rules and tools which completely neglects a pile of variables and thus they "quantify" their outcomes and results on loose terms (whether intentional or not) and present these flimsy results to the public as fact. Essentially they treat us like machines that have a predictable outcome from any given influence. There is something to say in regards to the rule of crowds but I would argue that the crowd is still made up of subjective and unique individuals who at any moment can defy the movement of the crowd and forge a new path, and with that presents an opportunity that could move the crowd in an unforeseen direction, better known as leaders. We need better leaders.