STELLAR MAZE DISCUSSION FORUM

Do you think that quantity can ever make up for a lack in quality?


#1

Well do you now?


#2

Um if the quality is so high that the quantity is zero the quality ends up lacking:) did you post that 1 minute ago. woah.


#3

Maybe that’s too cryptic…

What I mean is that yesterday I saw the movie Venom and I was thinking this movie is so terrible, yet perhaps to some people if they see enough of these type of movies that they don’t need ONE QUALITY MOVIE to watch, they are compensated by quantity.

Same thing with desert island albums. What are the ten musical albums you would take with you if you were trapped on a desert island? What’s the top album you would take above all others?

You hear people say I would take 1 x album for every 50 of y album. But, indeed, this statement is the crux of the question to me. It doesn’t make sense to equivocate an increase in amount to compensate for the lack of quality of y album. In other words, you could increase y ad infinitum and never match x.

That’s how I feel. But I wonder if anyone feels differently?

And if so, why?


#4

Wow, yeah, never knew you meant Venom:)

Do you ever experience that you’re just beat at the end of the day and you’ll watch anything just because you’re beat? My quality meter goes on vacation at such times.


#5

No, in this case it’s because a kid talked me into it. I would never watch this movie of my own accord.

But since I did and since I know it’s a popular movie, it makes me wonder if the people that are watching movies like this are satisfied with the quantitative element, for example, a lot of action.

For me, a good action movie is not a lot of action but a buildup to the action, like say The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I’ve also recently seen Infinity War (Avengers and Guardians of The Galaxy). Hyper-action sequences, but boring as hell to me. The action loses its intelligibility and impact when its going on all the time, or to the max nth degree.

I don’t just mean Venom by any means. It’s just this question arose after seeing this movie a couple of days ago.

It has arisen before in relation to many movies and music that I have had perchance to view or hear.

Because we live in age where there is more music and movies to experience than ever before, in a constant stream, does the sheer quantity make up for the lack of quality?

Actually, I’m not really asking that. I know full well that most people have little idea of quality (or else these movies wouldn’t be huge), but rather, can an increase in quantity ever make up for a lack in quality? It’s a philosophical question I guess.


#6

I guess maybe it gives the opportunity for more people to get a chance to make something of quality. But maybe we become lazier at expecting quality. Or give less thought to each choice because there is always the next choice.

Some movies are turned out just for a buck and quick effect. The good the bad and ugly is art.

I can’t remember what children’s book adapted into a movie I watched a few years back that had so many effects it was if the room was spinning. It was so plastic and boring and you could in real time just see their decisions. They had the cute funny moments all so cliche. So money. I forgot it immediately.

Well some movies you get the sense the dollar sign was the first inspiration.

Like genre recipes and a hope to be a smash success.

Maybe it feeds a certain extroverted desire for consumption.

5 pieces of cake.

I wonder what it is like to grow up with so much access to nearly disposable watching experiences.

I don’t see how it can be a good thing except to make you satiated faster and left soul searching sooner. Maybe boredom becomes more evident. And you might try to do something about it.

What’s bad is that it takes a conscious effort not to be actually controlled by the ease of access to crap. Quantity makes finding quality a conscious choice an extra effort a delay.

I can’t shake this strange feeling that we live at a strange time, a turning point, where we simply have trouble finding meaning. And young folks especially are at risk.


#7

Out of how many possible pieces? Enumerate the denominator.


#8

Ice cream.


#9

:wine_glass::champagne:

I see, let me rephrase that.

Do you think that frivolity can ever make up for a lack of koala bear-olity?


#10

Ok I need that drink now.


#11

No. Less is more.


#12

I’ve had my fair share of quantity vs. quality and I have come to realize that there is no substitute for quality.

I used to fix computers – a venture I deeply regret. When I did, I would buy spare parts and nicknacks like screwdriver and bit sets because they were cheap. But somehow, every set of bits I owned ended up having bent/twisted flatheads. So, after I decided to save $15 by buying a $10 set instead of a $25 set, I end up with 5 sets and a bunch of extra bits I don’t need. Meanwhile, all of the slotted bits don’t work and the Phillips bits are worn down. Mind you, I already hated fixing computers and it took a large chunk of my life that it shouldn’t have … but it’s equally annoying to have to dig round the house for the ONE set that still has bits that aren’t all chewed up. Why I kept them, is even more puzzling.

I ended up buying a more expensive set with hardened bits – now I have a fancy case to keep everything and the quality is just as good as it was when I bought it.

This is only one example … there are plenty of other examples …

On par with the above conversations though… if I had a choice between an entire collection of cheesy movies and one movie that is deeply profound and well-written, I would have to choose the one that is well-written. Quality. Because I may watch cheesy movies when I am absolutely bored and have nothing better to do, but it would be out of obligation because I own the movie. I would never intentionally choose to watch it on Netflix if it was there. Ultimately, quality is more purposeful, and it signals that somebody cared about the work they put into it.

It’s also quite apparent that after years of working in software development, too many people believe in just getting things done rather than producing quality work. Another reason the field is miserable. You have co-workers nitpicking your code because they don’t like they way you did something – meanwhile the rest of the code base looks like the aftermath of a terrible earthquake. Some organizations prefer to hire a dozen mediocre workers rather than a small handful of quality workers. Then it takes 2X as long to get a project done and you have more than 2X as many people.

Quantity is tempting, but when it becomes a substitute for quality, it’s a compromise that often corrupts the outcome.


#13

I’ve been thinking about these choices people make that completely corrupt a discipline. I’ve seen this in the field of education. It’s like suddenly everyone is doing the same stupid thing that corrupts education. It seems wise as long as there are “numbers” and “technology” and yet it’s got nothing to do with education. For example, assessing teaching quality according to whiny students’ evaluations only. But hey, it’s numbers, it must be real. Requiring teachers to do all the homework online so that they can’t pick what questions they assign and so that students expect hints to pop up any time they are stuck. As if that’s how problem solving actually works. This is the view point that math is STEM, and that there is no art to it, which is not true. All these uniformizing attempts to ensure quality that are enforced from administration that are hollow and basically just let these big companies profit. Way too much technology where it ain’t needed. Technology can be used in way cooler ways man. It’s not AUTOMATICALLY better though. People have got way too much faith in its inherent utility.

Well veering off topic again. But when numbers and just increasing profit is the prime motive you get some really shitty outcomes.


#14

I think it depends on the end goal, the process involved, and how important x-thing is to the subject(s) involved. If it doesn’t matter, who cares? Quality isn’t always everything in certain cases. And a big INFJ mistake to think /always/ quality over quantity for every scenario or process involved. Sometimes that leads to the opposite outcome.

And unfortunately artistic quality isn’t something everybody values. So in that case I can see how most people wouldn’t mind quick benefits, things that immediately appeal to the senses and in fact an excess of it. In fact they’d prefer more action, less quality. Because meaning doesn’t matter to them. They just want some fun, a quick escape route.

So I’d say, quality over quantity on the things that matter to any given individual. And quality over quantity on the ultimate end product (if it matters), but not necessarily all the tidbits and steps that lead up towards it.

And sometimes you don’t know what is worth your attention until you aim for quantity first. So fast and dirty, but not too fast and dirty to ensure a minimum level of quality. Gather data, find what’s best to consider. Then aim for quality afterwards. Unfortunately theorizing and thinking isn’t enough to consider what is most interesting or important until you gather objective data first (in certain cases I mean). So I think quantity (of data/experience) should be prioritized in a scenario like this. To ultimately reach the end goal of quality of whatever X-thing deserves your attention.


#15

Oh yes, and my previous post didn’t really answer your question.

If lack of quality = below minimum level of what would be considered “acceptable,” then no, basically not. If that’s not what you meant, then yes it can. For the reasons stated above.


#16

I like how balanced your answer is.


#17

I’m a Libra after all…It’s my ISTJ rising speaking ;)…


#18

Pithy and definite. Me likes.

Yes, as your screwdriver illustrated. My mom always told me it’s better to pay more and get something that meets your needs than try to pay less and get something that doesn’t work at all. Because then you just end up having to buy something else anyway and you ain’t saving any money. Stupid.

And see that hits the heart of it. I don’t think everyone feels that way. Because if you just have one movie to watch, well, it’s kind of limiting. I suffer from this. I don’t like many things. I notice other people like many things. I’m pissed.

Yep, keep putting out poorly made and integrated shit and then update it like mad.

I think there’s too many choices in general. I guess that’s what I meant by the title question of this thread.

But what if you run out of stuff to listen to or watch? I get bored with rehashing the same oldies over and over. But I don’t like new stuff for the most part. I don’t like old stuff for the most part either.

But I like anything that is well-made. And stuff used to better made, whether it was movies, ashtrays, or Millennials.

Ha, yeah I get it. Stupid. It’s no good to nitpick code that in general is poorly designed and integrated. But that’s the tech culture we live in. Get it out there on the market and start making some money.

This is infinitely stupid per the 80/20 principle.

See, right there. It actually is likely to take more than 2X as long, but that’s the heart of my question. You could have all the mediocre workers in the world but they would never produces something that one excellent worker (player) could make. Thus, quantity can’t make up for lack in quality.

I like this for a programming philosophy - the Unix philosophy as explained by Eric Raymond. A program should do one thing well etc.

Yeah, that has dumb written all over it.

Libra devil’s advocate over here. :wink:

I don’t know what I meant at this point but thanks all for your input!