I don't think you're engaging with the material at the level of sophistication that I was hoping for (i.e. the minimal level necessary to understand the phenomenon), so I don't think we can make any progress here.

You can't evaluate a complex time-delayed input-output system without grappling fully with all the pieces: what is the input, what is the effect given the input, and how has this integrated over the requisite period of time.

It's just actually that complicated.

The entirety of my point is that in this complex system, we're focusing too much on one part and not nearly enough on the others.

The ageism parallel was to illustrate a critical point about the process of becoming tenured faculty, a point that the five-thirty-eight article also misses (though it does at least recognize in part that instantaneous trends are different than the integrated result). Saying we should "stick to aging" basically is equivalent to stating that you aren't going to engage with the complexity of the issue, the relevance of which is brought into especially sharp focus when thinking about (supposed) ageism.

It's also true that not everything can be quantified, but ignoring or not collecting the key metrics and relying heavily on anecdote instead of comparison isn't a good way to do things. Again, the issue isn't that there is no racism at the level of, say, tenure committees, it's a question of magnitude. (And, also, saying "academia" has a problem--given the results of physics vs biology which I referenced last time--seems too coarse-grained to be usefully actionable.)

Thank you for sharing your perspective! There are some worthwhile points in there; they just need to be tempered by understanding of the methodological flaws in the standard way that we think about the problem. (I don't think it's just your flaw, but a pervasive flaw is still a flaw.)