"Single most important", even if technically true, can also be misleading.
It's probably not fair to indict too strongly on this phrase; people use exaggerated language all the time ("X is the best" to mean "X is very very good"), and so reading it as "thinking quantitatively is very very important" seems appropriate.
Nonetheless, as valuable as quantitative thinking is, it has (immeasurable) diminishing returns. It can never be more than a tool to realize our qualitative human values. Somewhere we have to "cash out" the numbers into things we care about, which don't have numbers attached: human dignity; individual autonomy; the look of joy in a child's eyes; the emotional security of family and friends; etc.
> It's probably not fair to indict too strongly on this phrase; people use exaggerated language all the time ("X is the best" to mean "X is very very good"), and so reading it as "thinking quantitatively is very very important" seems appropriate.
To me, the point isn't about pedantic enforcement of grammar and linguistics, but more so about to underlying thinking that this use of language suggests. To what extent does lazy/imprecise/presumptive/forgiving communication and thinking permeate the systems that implement our incredibly technically advanced advanced societies, where it is simultaneously common to find people who smell like pee sleeping on the sidewalk, and hardly anyone bats an eye, or finds the situation even remotely curious?
This comment isn't directed at you, it's just more of an esoteric observation.
As a mathematician, I read that headline and say "what are your axioms?" And that's a quantitative response to that qualitative headline, so no apologies.
Pointing out that someone else is aimlessly pointing out "errors" gets downvotes, apparently. That would be a hypothesis.