So its an equally weighted average of 7 categories. The data was reported by the nations themselves.
Now the key takeaway is that the US dropped out of the top 10. Comparatively, you can tell something is changing in the US causing a drop.
Metrics are just indicator, and can sometimes misrepresent the reality, but more often, there's truth in the metrics also. Its hard to say what the impact of this innovation score is, is it economic, or is it social, but clearly the score change is due to real realities changing.
The reported numbers from other countries, or the reported numbers from the US, could also be flawed. Just because numbers have changed relative to one another, doesn't mean that countries have done so as well. You are assuming a particular causal relationship when there are several plausible alternative theories available.
> more often, there's truth in the metrics
Metric isn't the right word. It would make sense for tangible qualities like area, population, and even GNP. But the measured quality here is "innovation," with an amalgam of other characteristics taken as the one true proxy thereof. It's a ranking, but it's not actually measuring innovation.
> clearly the score change is due to real realities changing.
It could also be a change in reported numbers. Or even random noise that tends to revert. These numbers may not even be relevant to the true seeds of innovation.
It's the change in relative rankings that is the useful data from these rankings, rather than the absolute ranking.
> Comparatively, you can tell something is changing in the US causing a drop.
Yes, one of the factors they used to come up with this rating. Now - the question is, are those factors actually correlated with innovation?
Now, maybe the US isn't as innovative as Sweden is. Ok. What exactly does that mean? Why do I care if the percentage of graduate educated people is higher? How does that actually affect innovation? Are those people releasing new, globally-changing products and services? What are some examples?
What does it mean if Samsung has more US patents than any other company besides IBM? Is IBM more innovative than Google?
It's fun and popular to bash the U.S. (has been for some time) but I really don't see much meaning behind these rankings. It's not an in-depth study. Amazon has more criteria for picking a HQ. Do you really think Bloomberg can look at these '7 criteria' and come up with a meaningful estimation? No.
It means exactly the same thing it meant when US was among top. There were people who were interested in it and sometimes happy about it. Those very same people are still interested, but this time wonder whether it means something is changing for worst.
Even the notion "hard science" vs "soft science" is a very slippery slope, IMO. We should not seek to speak of "hard" vs "soft" science; instead, we should focus on distinguishing good from bad science. Even science performed on incredibly difficult and complex topics (with immensely numerous confounding variables, near impossibility of controlled trials/experiments, etc.) can still be done correctly! One simply needs to adhere to statistical rigor and qualify conclusions from data with appropriate levels of uncertainty, withhold conclusions with no predictive power or statistical significance, and publish meaningful negative results just as frequently as positive results.
This movement of lax scientific rigor within fields that call themselves "sciences" is incredibly dangerous and threatens to erode the credibility of all results/fields that call themselves "scientific" in the eyes of the general public -- the vast majority of whom do not have the time, energy, or ability to review each field and/or publication to understand how rigorous and honest it actually is.
When you read about problems of anti-intellectualism and public distrust in science, the first thing we should do is look to the "sciences" (and bad journalism) that justify this distrust.
"statistically useless, arbitrarily rated average of multiple human designed score scales, meant to loosely relate to some quality we want to measure, but in reality is more a game of politics and adversarial score optimization." while honest and true doesn't get the masses clicking. Honest and true doesn't get stories bumped to the frontpage of HN.
I do feel for these journalists. They are like daily vloggers who have to deal with the constant pressure of generating content every single day to make money. That's like clickbait is so rampant in both the traditional and social media.
In reality (as you describe), these are completely arbitrary human-designed heuristic scores with most likely no statistical significance.
I really wish we could qualify these "rankings" with a more honest term , like:
"statistically useless, arbitrarily rated average of multiple human designed score scales, meant to loosely relate to some quality we want to measure, but in reality is more a game of politics and adversarial score optimization."
But that doesn't have the same 'ring' to it as "top country rankings in innovation".