KPIs, Statistics, Information and Socioeconomic Intelligence

Most CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) realize that how data is presented, analyzed, and discussed significantly impacts decision-making and, consequently, business performance. From scientific studies, we understand that "measurement" matters and influences outcomes; the act of "looking at KPIs" shapes business reality.

The recent global challenges related to disinformation and the emergence of powerful data processing models have undeniably affected business, the economy, and society at large. As an accountant, I am not a stranger to the "objectification" of data. I am aware that broader business education, particularly in North America, tends to be "data-focused," prioritizing "information-based decisions" and the investigation of "statistical patterns." We also learn about chance and Black Swan events that do not conform to this strictly data-oriented thinking. With the rise of powerful "data-projecting AI," we are further compelled to be "data-focused." However, the global landscape, economic impacts, and growing dissatisfaction with the "Big Picture" are becoming increasingly evident, particularly among young entrepreneurial talent.

It seems we need new rules to define "objective reality" concerning public information—not just private information. I am encouraged by the steps many jurisdictions are taking to address critical aspects of privacy and data. Some people deny the existence of an objective reality, believing that all experiences are subjective. This belief fuels efforts to manipulate and present data in ways that fit particular narratives or objectives. This subjectivity may be temporary, but in the grand scheme, it can last decades or even centuries. Many news stories or press releases are associated with specific political parties or worldviews, leading users to prefer information that aligns with those views, as if "reality" were a matter of choice, akin to belief in Santa Claus. By adopting such views, we find it easier to accept them as intuitive truths, providing comfort in numbers, even if we are mistaken. The more we consume these narratives, the more we see the world through the same lens, becoming hesitant or, in extreme cases, aggressive toward opposing views that challenge our adopted perspectives.

But what does science say about reality? Is there, or is there not, an objective reality? Many scientists believe there is "something out there" that we do not fully comprehend, likely due to the "uncertainty principle." This principle suggests that the workings of the universe are inherently encoded in a way that "looking" can change or destroy the outcome, preventing us from fully understanding how the natural world functions. With today’s technology, this presents additional challenges; many scientists, excited about new measurement methods, might mistakenly identify their results as "real." But are they? By design, there is no way to know. This "scientific arrogance" has become a major problem, not just in science but also in business, leading to misguided conclusions that could steer us down the wrong path. We may declare ourselves predictive geniuses because we throw a stone at a window and see it break, but is that science? True science carries an element of mystery, and those who enjoy critical thinking often find pleasure in this process. Our minds are powerful tools, no doubt, but are we using them as intended?

Returning to objective reality and information presentation, I believe there are several crucial steps that international legal systems must engage with to combat disinformation and prevent the rise of distorted or hostile subjective realities that threaten our potential.

360-Degree Views of Information: This should be a standard for news providers. Those that fail to meet this standard should rebrand as opinion providers rather than news outlets and be regulated differently. Each news item should include:

1. Framework for Legal Definition: Establishing a framework that defines objective information presentation could assist readers in evaluating news before integrating it into their worldviews. This information should be free from bias for anyone claiming to provide news or objective information.
2. Human, Animal, and Environmental Rights: Using dehumanizing language, such as referring to casualties as “operatives,” is misleading and contributes to a subjective reality where casualties are acceptable as long as they are labeled as enemies—terms that often stem from unresolved conflicts or political agendas. The terminology we use should be scrutinized to avoid reducing human, animal, and environmental costs to mere statistics.
3. Leadership and Problem-Solving Orientation: Media should focus on available resources to mitigate crises and guide readers toward problem-solving rather than presenting news as a helpless reality. Accountability for inaction or wrongful action should be addressed, encouraging a mindset of solutions rather than acceptance of a dire situation.
4. Credible Institutions as Sources of Information: Just as in accounting, where official documents are preferred over social media posts, credible institutions should be the primary sources of credible information.
5. Funding Models: Independent information should be supported by funding models that ensure objectivity, which should be transparent to readers.
6. Supplemental Historical Information: Providing references to additional credible information could help readers become informed rather than radicalized by a particular worldview driven by political agendas.

I believe that with current AI technology, it should be possible to provide credible, politically neutral information to readers. Adopting a 360-degree perspective can foster intelligent discourse about subjects rather than promoting divisive political conflicts, ultimately benefiting solution generation and entrepreneurial growth in addressing societal needs in the broader information age economy.

From a purely KPI perspective, I recommend that business clients use color coding for complex data, such as human data, and approach discussions with the same respect they would use when discussing real individuals. For instance, if certain statistics pertain to natural persons, they should be marked with a specific color, while data that does not involve people, animals, or the environment should be marked differently. This approach creates a certain sensitivity to the subject matter, helping to foster a trustworthy and safety-oriented culture. People notice how decisions are made, and they adjust their engagement accordingly.

?