Static indicators persist because they are cheap despite being inadequate

Evidence

There is little dispute on these points: all analysts agree that it is better to use “dynamic indicators” that attempt to capture the likely courses of wars fought under various conditions. But such measures are much more expensive in terms of time and cognitive resources and do not yield simple and straightforward summary numbers. Because they involve a large number of variables of widely different kinds and are highly sensitive to conditions and context—e.g., how the war starts, what each side’s targeting strategy is, how well the weapons work, etc.—they do not lend themselves to easy comparison over time or between two adversaries. Thus, it is not surprising that static indicators remained popular; for all their inadequacies, they are relatively easy to develop and use. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2608

Categorization

• XREF: This is a textbook instance of satisficing / bounded rationality in expert analysis, connecting to Herbert Simon’s work and to ‘dynamic vs static’ tradeoffs in any measurement regime.
• SEED: Angle: how measurement simplicity wins over accuracy across domains — military balance, climate models, IQ, GDP.