The Quantitative Worthiness Assessment Criteria for Sayings (QWACS)

Published

2021-07-18

I’ve started a blog series on stupid sayings. (This is perhaps best read in conjunction with this post about the saying which inspired, or rather provoked, the series). However, the mere classification of a saying as stupid or not doesn’t seem enough – it might be preferable to have a measure of how stupid – or good – a saying actually is. In order to achieve this I introduce the Quantitative Worthiness Assessment Criteria for Sayings, or QWACS for short. This is a system which measures the worthiness¹ of a saying, resulting in a numeric value describing how good or bad the saying is.

For easy interpretation, it may be advantageous for 0 to represent a neutral saying², positive numbers to represent a good saying and negative numbers to represent a stupid saying. Magnitudes of 1 could represent the thresholds for where you should definitely try and use a +1 saying or definitely endeavor to shun a -1 saying.

I propose a rubric with a weighing system. Without further ado here it is:

PDF Loading…

Explanation

Each criteria is assigned a value according to the rubric, represented as x subscript 1 through N.

Weights are also computed and allow for extra heuristics. The truth is zero-rated if it’s unhelpful. If the main purpose of the saying is to be witty then it can be forgiven for being false or unhelpful, so we zero-rate those in that instance. Sloganasunetos³ is given a weight which results views positive sayings with sloganasunetos in a positive light, since if it’s a good saying we shouldn’t care if people just quote it inappropriately. Also, we elect to only consider superiority signalling if the saying is malevolent, otherwise who cares.

Note we elect not to normalize the final QWAC by 1/N since it is envisaged that addition of future criteria would provide both positive and negatives which would average each other out for the average saying.

An online calculator would be cool but I’m not too clued up on the web development side so here’s an Octave script for now:

QWACS Download

Calibration

In order to calibrate the QWACS we should consider a saying which shouldn’t be used and adjust the factor K_f in order to obtain a value of -1. This is a bit objective. I would say a saying should be either both malevolent and false or malevolent and unhelpful in order to be considered re-pungent. This also leaves some margin for assessment error.

Test runs or examples

Here are some examples to illustrate how the QWACS works.

I always arrive late at the office, but I make up for it by leaving early.
Charles Lamb

We don’t know if he’s really always late, for illustration let’s pick x_truth = -2. It’s not really helpful (0), however it is witty (1). Zero for the rest. So this has an overall QWACS of 0.5. Worth it for the wit. This illustrates why we zero rate truth and helpfulness when the intention of the saying is wit.

Money can’t buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you’re being miserable.
Not sure, awfully difficult to find some actual origins these days

I’d rate this as false (-1). Studies have shown once you’re above a threshold any additional money won’t have much effect but go below there and you definitely will notice it. It’s not really helpful. Depending on how you say it there could be some dark wit here so it can take a 1 for benefit of the doubt⁴. It’s not precise and introduces many unanswered questions, perhaps scoring a -1 here.⁵. I don’t think it qualifies as malevolent so it’s zeros for the rest. That gives it a QWACS of 0. Not the best.

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.
Nelson Mandela

Ok let’s put it through the QWACS. There isn’t much factual content, on principle it is true that in life we often fall and it is good to rise again, whether this is the greatest glory is debatable. I’d probably give x_truth=0 or 1, let’s pick 0 for the sake of the example. I’d say it’s helpful (1), not witty (0) and definitely inspiring (1). Precision could be a 1 – the saying is addressing a general principle but it does narrow into the specifics of how you’d deal with that. I don’t think there’s much sloganasunetos (0) and the saying doesn’t ring of superiority signalling – he’s putting himself in the same boat as us. So this has an overall QWACS score of 1.5. Definitely a good saying and worth repeating.

Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
Albert Einstein

This could be discussed more than it’s use as an example warrants so I’ll keep it short. I think it’s true, many other sources also agree with this principle. I’d actually give it a 2, because this is actually one of the most difficult and most necessary questions and perhaps the best answer to it. Helpfulness perhaps 1, it does give general guidance but at the same time it’s not very practical. Wit is 0, precision is perhaps 1 – I think the precision element needs to be considered against the scope of the saying. Although broad, it encloses itself well and doesn’t leave extra bits hanging if that makes any sense. I would say it’s an inspiration (1), has average sloganasunetos (0) and could be construed with some superiority signalling depending on how dispensed (-2), although we don’t care since it’s not malevolent. So that gives an overall QWACS of 2.5. Definitely a good saying, perhaps even something to stick on the fridge and try and live by.

Conclusion

Let me know if you want to suggest any improvements to the QWACS. It’s fairly rough but I feel is still usable in it’s current state.

If it QWACS like a -1 or lower, it’s probably a stupid saying. You shouldn’t use it. The world would be better off without it.

On the other hand, sayings with large QWACS are probably worth paying attention to as they could contain great wisdom, insight and inspiration.

Footnotes

1
Worthiness of the saying: is it worth actually using the saying, or would the world be better off without it?
2
A neutral saying isn’t worth the air it’s spoken on, but at least it’s not bad
3
See this post for the introduction of this term
4
starts thinking about whether fractional ratings should be used now
5
If we can’t get happiness with money, what are the alternatives? Why are we being miserable? It’s not a neat package.