Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

today.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#11

Post by panic »

asgard1024 wrote: post #8
_yosefk wrote: post #5

It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. (Go programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by generics as real, C++ programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by garbage collection and boundary checking as real, Python programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by static typing as real…

> It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. I disagree, the two examples (climate change and gun control) aren't that different. Both are issues of personal freedom. I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists (people like Chomsky), who I feel very close political sympathies to. I am (obviou…

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#14

Post by Nemcue »

atemerev wrote: post #6

If "we don't like the solutions", this means that proposed measures are not "solutions", as they do not solve the problem properly. It's better to keep looking.

Sometimes a solution — or a variety of different solutions — still have a significant pain point attached to them.

Just because of that, you can't derive with absolute certainty that there's "a better solution". It might just be the nature of the problem has no solutions that everyone "likes".

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#15

Post by erikb »

While it sounds very reasonable as far as I can read it's one study, three experiments, less than a thousand data points total. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Usually you need quite a few studies and a paper that repeats and summarizes them before you can say you have a conclusion, right?

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#16

Post by nabla9 »

asgard1024 wrote: post #8
_yosefk wrote: post #5

It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. (Go programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by generics as real, C++ programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by garbage collection and boundary checking as real, Python programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by static typing as real…

> It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. I disagree, the two examples (climate change and gun control) aren't that different. Both are issues of personal freedom. I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists (people like Chomsky), who I feel very close political sympathies to. I am (obviou…

>I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists

The obvious blind spot is the problem caused by politicization of everyday life.

Faceless authority where your value is determined by market forces and laws that come far above you may feel problematic because it's faceless and impersonal. Impersonality is also benefit. When you do your job and go home, you don't have to suck up for the boss in free time and he don't care what your political views are.

In small democratic organization you have a face. The good thing is that you have a voice and can participate more. The bad thing is that you have a face. Your political opinions and your personal relationships and personality is part of the game. Your professional life is in the hands of your peers and the cliques that organically form.

See also: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#17

Post by asgard1024 »

panic wrote: post #11
asgard1024 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. I disagree, the two examples (climate change and gun control) aren't that different. Both are issues of personal freedom. I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists (people like Chomsky), who I feel very close political sympathies to. I am (obviou…

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

Generally, yes!

But it really depends on what you mean by "collectivist". Could iPhone be produced by IBM, a huge corporation with top-down command and control? It's about as likely, I would say.

I work at medium American corporation and it's not really that different from what was called "socialist" enterprise here in Czech Republic. It is certainly more efficient, but sometimes pathologically - good ideas get killed all the time. And there is not really that much less stupidity to go around.

And socialism here (I take it from your question that's what you imagine as "collectivist") certainly wasn't ideal system for liberal left, who would probably prefer some form of worker cooperatives or something like that.

Perhaps I should emphasize what I mean by "collectivist" in my previous comment. I actually refer to empathy (or less selfishness) rather than form of ownership. What I mean is understanding that other side can have a different opinion and willingness to compromise (e.g. your personal freedom) with the needs/feelings of others. It doesn't mean you have to entirely ditch the free market, for instance.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#18

Post by ilaksh »

I think its simpler than that. No one looks at scientific evidence or anything else objectively. Everyone has pre-existing beliefs. And the nature of a belief is that you don't change it easily and it overrides everything else.

So its not that people don't like science or don't know how to think rationally. Everyone is just really good at rationalizing their pre-existing worldview.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#19

Post by _yosefk »

asgard1024 wrote: post #8
_yosefk wrote: post #5

It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. (Go programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by generics as real, C++ programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by garbage collection and boundary checking as real, Python programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by static typing as real…

> It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. I disagree, the two examples (climate change and gun control) aren't that different. Both are issues of personal freedom. I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists (people like Chomsky), who I feel very close political sympathies to. I am (obviou…

If a "blind spot" is understood literally then to have no blind spots would require to see, well, everything there is to see at the same time, which is sorta impossible. I think it's pretty obvious that our ability to think - to take facts into account and work out their consequences - is necessarily very much limited by a finite input bandwidth, a finite storage capacity and a finite processing capacity, and so any finite brain will have mental blind spots. To believe otherwise is to be a great believer indeed, IMO...

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#20

Post by [deleted] »

Udik wrote: post #9

I wonder if the study is able to make a distinction between solution aversion and what could be called "proponent aversion". That is, it is normal to be skeptical of a statement when it comes from somebody we don't trust. And our level of trust can be dependent from another statement coming (or perceived to be coming) from the same source. In this case, the proposed solution to the problem. I've concocted an example:…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN