Rules should be questioned. I should always break rules when it helps someone other than me and when it does not hurt anyone else including me. This means if there is a chance I will be punished for breaking a rule, no matter how dumb the rule and no matter how pretentious the punishing power, I should probably think twice before breaking the rule; and if possible I should work instead to change the rule. Many rules are arbitrary and/or subjective. Some rules are cosmetic; in place to give an impression of order and to hide the flaws. Many rules are in place to maintain status quo and many of those were created to quell minority / opposition uprisings. And then there are rules that are intended to (and sometimes do) actually help people by imparting wisdom, leveling playing fields…

Stop!

This is not where I wanted to go this week. I am suddenly bogged down by rules when my intent was the opposite – to consider alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility. As long as there is some structure, some logical method in place, why must we restrict ourselves to only one? Why not open it up to accommodate unforeseen or unexpected or less common specificities?

I am talking about formal subjective performance evaluation as is commonly seen utilized for students and employees; (but I could be talking about simple informal consideration, empathy and understanding). In the case of formal systems, as long as the multiple methods are clearly defined and understood, knowing that one method may advantage one and disadvantage another but also vice versa, and having other objective measurements such as exam scores or production numbers in place, and setting the parameters wide enough to capture outliers yet narrow enough to sustain consistent expectations, and looking at sufficient previous data to set those parameters, why the fuck not? And in the case of informal relationships, why the fuck not?

No; the consistency of one subjective method or measurement is not synonymous with fairness.

Yes; I am suggesting a logical methodical structure in which individuals may be excused for not playing the assigned game. Instead of excusing, some may see this as making excuses, but if the game or system is subjective then it is restrictive and unfair to begin with and this creates bigger issues than semantics.

I understand that if the point of the subjective measurement exercise is to choose 1 or 10 or 25 out of 2 or 100 or 300, then only one method can be used. And I do not agree that everyone should receive a trophy. But if multiple methods of measurement can be applied to include a reasonable (perhaps less than 5%?) number of outliers who were using a different but similar game board that maintains expectations and abides by the spirit of the law, and again knowing that any subjective measurement will be restrictive and unfair, then again why the fuck not?

Are we hesitant because we see subjective measurement in formal performance evaluation the same as subjective measurement in a selection process? In a selection process, exclusivity is required. (I think it is important to say that again.) In a selection process, exclusivity is required. I think in a performance evaluation we may be mistakenly applying this principle of exclusivity believing it will help us to set a fair and just level of expectations and to maintain integrity in the system, yet (especially in an acknowledged subjective measurement) exclusivity is inconsistent with fairness. To be arbitrarily non-inclusive contradicts efforts toward equity and diversity. And if by adjusting or weighting a method of measurement a few degrees one way or another, we randomly include some and exclude others, (others who we can reasonably argue should be included), this is the very definition of arbitrary. So by seeking consistency in order to be fair we have instead restricted the bounds of justice.

I have primarily focused on formal performance evaluation and the inevitable restrictive unfairness of any subjective measurement to make this argument for a greater inclusiveness, but (as mentioned) we can and (probably more readily) do allow for consideration, empathy and understanding in informal relationships, (which if you think about it are essentially a running series of assessments and evaluations). Perhaps the value of this week’s thought is in the takeaway that is somewhere in between. If we can reasonably argue for alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility within a formal setting such as school or workplace, then we should absolutely be able to do the same, with an even wider net, in our everyday social and political constructs that (I believe) theoretically fall between the demanding structure of a formal performance evaluation and the personal nature of an informal relationship. Imagine that. Consideration, empathy and understanding from our systems of bureaucracy and governance, resulting in more individual freedom and possibility. A boy can dream.