Why We Trust 5-Star Ratings Too Much

A number out of five is a verdict without a context. Adam Smith had a better instrument. Somebody taps the fourth star and means it kindly. The driver sees a score that will decide whether he keeps working. Adam Smith's answer to how we judge each other was not a rating. It was the impartial spectator: an imagined witness who knows the whole situation, and whose approval you cannot get by performing. Smith also separated being praised from being praiseworthy the first can be bought, the second cannot. This essay puts the star rating beside that instrument and asks what a five-point scale can and cannot carry. What this is not: an argument that ratings should be abolished. They do real work accountability, safety, a record for people who would otherwise have none. The argument is about what happens when a number arrives without the context, the proportion, or the right of reply that a judgement normally requires. CHAPTERS 0:00 The four-star paradox 0:52 The driver's testimony 2:39 The passenger's testimony 4:11 Smith calls his first witness 7:24 The judge inside the judge 10:19 The algorithm gives its verdict 13:37 The defence of ratings 16:22 Where Smith's own spectator fails 18:54 The verdict SOURCES Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). The impartial spectator is Smith's own device; the video is explicit that Smith's internal witness can inherit the prejudices of its society rather than escaping them. This is an essay to think with. If a question here is yours rather than theoretical, take it to someone qualified who can know your circumstances.