Actual vs. Perceived Relevance
Let’s talk about relevance. Consider the following question from my advanced engineering mathematics course:
Question: Find the inverse Fourier transform of the following equation
Answer:
Perhaps I’m going out on a limb here, but to me, the preceding problem looks Greek. And, it might as well be, as many Greek letters it has (those ws are actually Omegas). This problem is one step of many used to solve partial differential equations. The theory is that we can’t solve these problems easily on our own, so we transform it into something, solve it that way, and then transform it back (which is the step done above). To solve this single step took me no less than two pieces of blank copy paper–front and back.
As a student of utility, I took the opportunity to ask my professor what relevance this all had in the real world. “Is this math that people actually use, or is it something to help us understand the math behind the ubiquitous computer programs?” “Yes,” he conceded, “it is the math behind the computer program,” but then he goes on, “and its use otherwise is quite widespread.” Evidently, these techniques we are studying are fairly common. I pushed on: “And, what type of field is this used in?” Here we are at the conclusion. “Nuclear reactor design.” Remember, construction on the most recently built nuclear reactor in the United States began in 1978. Hardly is reactor design quite widespread.
Back on topic–let’s talk about relevance.
Apparently, there is a disconnect between actual relevance and perceived relevance. When individuals attain a high level of understanding about a particular area of interest, my suspicion is that they become less objective about its relevance. As more is learned, the perceived relevance increases commensurately. But, this may not in fact change actual relevance. This proves challenging for policymakers that need to know about how important an issue is before taking a stance or suggesting action. Could there be a conflict of interest? The people we rely on to tell us about issues are frequently experts in their field. Thus, is it possible that many issues are overblown by their own experts exuberance? Should we in fact seek to find more less knowledgeable and less passionate policy analysts in the expectation that they will be more objective about how to proceed?
