Instead of measuring algorithmic success through engagement metrics, measure through absence: reduced argument duration, decreased polarization speed, and lower emotional arousal.
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. Quantification itself corrupts what it measures—an insight confirmed by Goodhart's Law: when metrics become targets, they cease to be good measures. Current algorithmic politics is imprisoned by metrics: engagement, clicks, shares. These measurements automatically incentivize inflammatory content, polarization, and manipulation. Laozi would suggest that the truly important political outcomes are invisible to current metrics: genuine learning, increased empathy, slowed reactivity, improved listening. A reverse metric system would measure success through what doesn't happen: reduced duration of political arguments, decreased speed of emotional escalation, fewer conversions from disagreement to hatred. These are harder to measure, which is precisely why they matter more. If you can't easily quantify something, you're forced to use judgment and wisdom rather than automated optimization. This returns decision-making to humans while removing the false certainty that numeric metrics provide. Paradoxically, a system that refuses to optimize for measurable outcomes often produces better genuine outcomes precisely because it resists the distortion that measurement introduces.
Peri can explain this concept, give practical examples, help you decide whether it applies to your situation, or recommend a journey if appropriate.
Explore related journeys or tell Peri what you're working through.