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

21–30 of 132 posts

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

#21

Post by bobcostas55 »

asgard1024 wrote: post #17
panic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kille…

I think the parent meant it in a more general sense. Apple doesn't single-handedly produce the iPhone, it takes the coordination of millions of people, most of whom have no contact with Apple whatsoever: those who design oil drilling equipment, those who build it, those who use oil drilling equipment, those who then extract the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it, turn it into plastic bits for the iphone, transport them, put everything together, transport it. And there's a chain like that for every thing in the phone (for some items, such as CPUs the chain is far more complex). There is no top-down command and control, and I doubt it's possible. The only reason coordination on such a massive scale works is because of the price mechanism.

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

#22

Post by kaybe »

asgard1024 wrote: post #10

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", ca…

Actually the issue is later in the chain, "don't increase the atmospheric amount of climate gas" in first order.

You're free to take out the fossil fuels if you do not use them as fuels but make plastic or whatever (which may lead to other unrelated problems), or if you manage to someone keep the CO2 from being emitted it should also be ok (and again can lead to problems, this time related, such as local and global risk of leakage etc).

On the other hand, other greenhouse gases such as methane or those from deforestation are also problematic. The order of magnitude right now is a lot smaller than the first problem, but that may not stay so. There are also some talks of deliberate climate engineering, which, in first order, may have chances to work (most involved on a deeper level think it's too risky).

All in all, the issue is quite complicated and there are a lot of possible (technical, not just economical/social) solutions with advantages and disadvantages, which I think makes the issue even harder to acknowledge.

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

#23

Post by jedrek »

Nemcue wrote: post #14
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".

With something like climate change, issue is that the pain point for the problem is time deferred. An obvious comparison would be to lead in gasoline, cookware and paint: The problems that it caused took many years to surface. Getting rid of it was both expensive and required new solutions. Thankfully, we got out ahead of that problem... I'm curious if in the current political climate that would be possible.

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

#24

Post by nn3 »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #21
asgard1024 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kille…

I think the parent meant it in a more general sense. Apple doesn't single-handedly produce the iPhone, it takes the coordination of millions of people, most of whom have no contact with Apple whatsoever: those who design oil drilling equipment, those who build it, those who use oil drilling equipment, those who then extract the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it, turn it into plastic bits for the iphone, tran…

The Soviet Union built some fairly complex machines too, for example buran the Russian space shuttle, nuclear power plants, large airplanes, submarines etc. I don't think these are significantly less complex than an iPhone. Likely more. Now you could argue they did it less frequently or less efficient and not really benefitting the average consumer in many cases. And that would be true. But there is no denying that a top down economy did those things.

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

#25

Post by tdyen »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #4

See famous "The Black Knight" scene from Monthy Python. Question remains, what can we do about people in denial? Because many problems won't solve themself.

World Population comes to mind. Will it solve itself? It might but in countries where it doesnt the consequences will be devestating and flow over to other parts of the world for sure.

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

#26

Post by ownagefool »

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:…

Pretty much both soltions can be followed up with who's trying to make money here?

And I know it's besides the point, but I'd argue learning about vitimins is probably less harmful than being forced to undertake psychological testing. YMMV.

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

#27

Post by afarrell »

I am curious if this is hurt by people denying[1] the pain a solution would cause. A massive shift away from petrocarbon exploration would cause a great deal of unemployment (and consequently suicide, domestic violence, etc) in areas like Houston.

[1] http://m.imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu

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

#28

Post by pekk »

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:…

I wonder if we can make that distinction either.

It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive that the main use of citing an increasing suicide rate is to push homeopathic education.

If your aversion to certain proponents relates back to what it is they are proposing, it is not really an aversion to those proponents but to their proposals.

Maybe proponent aversion would be if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because Obama (or black people, "liberals" etc.) had made that claim, independent of the qualities of proposed solutions.

If someone's statements can't be trusted to be true, that doesn't rationally mean their statements are evidence of their contradictions. Even if you don't trust anything Obama says, that shouldn't normally mean that "Obama says that P" is evidence of not-P.

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

#29

Post by guard-of-terra »

nn3 wrote: post #24
bobcostas55 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent meant it in a more general sense. Apple doesn't single-handedly produce the iPhone, it takes the coordination of millions of people, most of whom have no contact with Apple whatsoever: those who design oil drilling equipment, those who build it, those who use oil drilling equipment, those who then extract the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it, turn it into plastic bits for the iphone, tran…

The Soviet Union built some fairly complex machines too, for example buran the Russian space shuttle, nuclear power plants, large airplanes, submarines etc. I don't think these are significantly less complex than an iPhone. Likely more. Now you could argue they did it less frequently or less efficient and not really benefitting the average consumer in many cases. And that would be true. But there is no denying that a…

Soviet Union routinely failed to sell its nuclear plants, airliners and less complex stuff.

Soviet Union was able to produce something that worked, but it was all below price-quality curve. I.e. you could buy same quality product from Western corporations for less money; or you could buy better quality product for same money. Western corporations also had better selection.

So only buyers were in communist bloc, and what USSR end up exporting is oil and gas.

And that'll happen nine times out of ten, since socialist economies are not optimal.

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

#30

Post by JesperRavn »

Another related fallacy I see all the time is dismissing a problem by inventing a terrible solution.

E.g.

Climate change is real -> "So you are saying we should just shut down all industry and go back to the dark ages"

The establishment of Israel was unethical -> "So you are saying we should just push all the Jews currently living in Israel into the sea."

Even asking a question shows a fallacy, since it implies that the existence of an adequate solution is related to the truth of the existence of the problem. A very common example is

There might be innate differences in ability/interests between men and women -> "If this was true, what would that imply? What is your end goal here"

Post reply on HN