Squaring the circle with the humanities: a mathematician looks at the humanities’ challenge. From the editorial:

When strangers discover my profession, it is often followed by the phrase, “You must be smart.” This is startling considering they know nothing of my talents or achievements (or lack thereof), bestowing admiration based solely on math. While a part of me rejoices in hearing their words, would I have received a similar reaction had I been a historian, a writer, an artist?

Not likely.

The reason is an unspoken spectrum of smart in society today, a quick way to size up someone based on their choice of career or college major: art < literature < history < economics < biology < math.

As one moves to the right on this spectrum, ideas become purer, cleaner and more measurable. The narrative casts mathematics and the sciences as stewards of difficult ideas, with the humanities and arts relegated to the simpler struggles. We assume that exploring black holes, protein folding and artificial intelligence is more baffling and opaque than analyzing history, writing poetry or shaping sculpture.

This assumption is not only flawed but also completely backward, for there is a missing part to this story: the hidden dimension of complexity.

Although measurability increases toward the right of the spectrum, complexity increases toward the left. By their very nature, questions in science and math become less messy, yielding more accurate solutions, whereas ideas in the humanities are more complicated, resulting in less precision.

h/t Reuben Margoliash