Do numbers explain the world? Simple explanations for complex problems

When do we believe climate change is real? Or perhaps most importantly, how many people must lose their lives before we admit there is a genocide? Or what prompts us into action address the homelessness & global housing crisis? For the last five decades, data has been considered the pivot point for action and behavior change. Government, thinktanks and nonprofit organizations have engaged developing entire programmes and solutions based on credible data and evidence. Read any policy document or nonprofit funding proposal, you can find enormous evidence that defines the problem, often justifying the causal & linear effects of development. For instance, the conditional cash transfers and its impact in reducing poverty; unconditional asset transfer (such as land or cows) to address rural poverty etc. The list is long. Many noble prize winner in economics have been lauded for finding the perfect econometrics and data equation that can relate data to poverty reduction. Evidence and data are slowly but surely replacing the visible hard experience of the lived reality. In fact, the lived reality is such that it is now become a series of assumptions in a scientific experiment, rather than the determinant of social change. For many scientists and economists’ data is a ‘truth telling’ exercise. If data tells us what’s really going on, it can explain complex issues simplistically. And ultimately inform action that shapes behavior. But is that true? Is data the most effective tool for shaping action? I argue that data is insufficient, and we need to develop new methods to understand complex issues.

Take for example, the global housing crisis- that thousands & millions of people are living without adequate shelter. The data & evidence is clear, yet it speaks many languages- for economists it tells us the story of land and home as an asset, for the sociologists it tells the story of community and for urban planners to story of human rights and social justice.  Datasets also present many risks and shape perceptions. The highest risk being blame- for e.g. blame the people that are living on the street, blame the ‘illegal’ migrants that are buying affordable housing stock, blame the policies that protect people from injustice etc.  This blame and direct attribution to an issue overly simplifies vastly complicated issues that are often shaped by power, people policies and programmes.

My argument is that data-based logic & analysis shapes deep bias, blame & inaction equally. In relation to housing crisis, the same data and evidence can create deep division and fragmentation in society. And this leads to a limited understanding issues in an ahistorical and apolitical perspective, creating room for misinformation and seeding hatred. For instance, the very same data can inform very different bias, blame & (in)actions:

1.        Land as an economic asset: Such as the South African housing programme the gives state subsidized housing. As a conditional asset transfer programme, the data would indicate that this would lead to the most transformative poverty reduction programme.

2.        ‘Its the economy stupid’: In many ways, this is a version of ‘teach a person to fish’. And if a person earns enough income, they will be able to access housing in the ‘market’. Or, if they are lucky, they will be able to access a grant or a mortgage and ultimately find stability. 

3.        ‘Markets equalize eventually’: Many scholars feel this is a supply issue. If the market has enough housing in supply, the market will ultimately (& magically equalize) to provide greater market led affordable housing.

4.        Providing housing vouchers: Rather than providing affordable housing, provide a rental housing voucher that persons can use for any market led housing (like in the many north American countries).

5.        Affordability crisis: that the root cause of poverty and inequality is the exclusionary land markets. And that unless we address affordability by regulating private markets, we are tinkering with symptoms not the roots.

6.        Provision of tenure security: that if people feel they are secure in their homes, and can invest, it will ultimately lead to greater self- reliance, responsibility and cohesion.

I can go on with a list of twenty different alternatives that global governments can or has tried over the last 25 years. Issues like the housing crisis, transportation, health, climate change education, political crisis etc. are deeply paradoxical, contradictory and interdependent. And no amount of data or simplification is sufficient to holistically understand the problem or shape action.

Ultimately, we must admit that some complex problems and issues are so deeply interconnected that they just don’t have simple explanations. Perhaps the pursuit of ‘explanation’ itself is an oxymoron. And perhaps liberating oneself of trying to ‘explain in a nutshell’ and ‘brevity’ will yield a much more holistic view of our consciousness. This brings us to a philosophical conundrum- if we cannot explain and understand something through data, how do we make sense of our reality? Maybe finding new methods of understanding the lived experience for understanding the world and related problems. 

In my view, making sense of our reality is to embrace the complexity, engage with it and ultimately be open to transform our deep morals and worldviews. My experience has taught me that we need to look beyond conventional tools and methods:

·      Starting with people and purpose- a shared cause and purpose drives social justice work. Centering people and purpose built on strong morals and sense of justice is essential for building social change & action.  Centering people also centers the lived experience.

·      Developing sound processes- Processes determine impact. Processes focused on education, building deeper consciousness and citizen participation are central to determining sound outcomes.

·      Centering Impact on stories- Rather than justifying impact through numbers, focus on stories of substantial change- in mindsets, behavior, ideology, morality etc. Storytelling are powerful agents of change, and shape people’s deepest beliefs and morals.

·      Leadership and Governance- Recognizing that nature of the problem is paradoxical, develop more reflexive leadership that does adaptive & generative strategies rather than predetermined outcomes.

The three decades in the world are going to see many issues collide- global refugee crisis, genocide and conflict, inflation, cost of living & inflation, climate crisis, housing etc. Relying on data and evidence will only deepen our crisis of hate, blame and fragmentation in society. Rather- listen, ask, embrace, educate, organize around the complex problems, and recentre our world on the human condition, and not on numbers.