You want to reply to this post:
I agree that quantifying and modelling more often _may_ lead to confidence bias, overconfidence, Dunning-Kruger, or problems of the sort, sometimes.
But that is very weak criticism of my proposal, since _every_ system or tool you use (or lack thereof) could potentially give you a false sense of confidence. Don't people with religious convictions have overconfidence? Don't people who rely mostly on tradition, social norms or intuition have biases (eg, desirability bias) and poor understanding of issues ?
The question for me (and other rationalists) is **whether people and institutions would be better off, in general, using maths more often**, in the form of stats, estimates, cost-benefit analyses, decision matrices, etc.
My impression is that the vast majority of people would benefit from putting numbers on things more often.
