Analysts prefer absolutes, easily quantified metrics, and familiar data over complex assessment

Evidence

Furthermore, in looking at inputs people have a preference for absolutes, for examining what is most easily quantified, and for stressing what they have most information on. Thus, in the 1930s the British judged comparative air strength by counting the number of planes each side had. Sometimes they distinguished the total number from what they called “first-line” aircraft—planes of the most modern design— but even this degree of complexity was often dropped (Gilbert, 1967). This was not because the British treated the whole ques-tion of the comparison casually. There were long debates over how to calculate first-line strength (Gilbert, 1967), but the attempts to push beyond this measure were few and desultory. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2596

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the general literature on quantifiable input bias in risk assessment and decision-making under uncertainty; also echoes the Milgrom material on information costs driving institutional form.