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

People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

freakonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 453 posts

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#311

Post by PinkMilkshake »

aantix wrote: post #282
fouc wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a joke "alive" until the explanation? So those that 'got' the joke would've enjoyed the joke, before moving onto read the next line. So reading the explanation of the joke wouldn't interfere with their enjoyment of the joke since they already enjoyed it prior to reading the explanation.

If you're telling a joke, you don't want emotional context switching. A quick explanation, laughter might be preserved (so the above pun may or may not inhibit the execution of the original joke). But every joke has an emotional gravity and the longer you compliment it with other emotions (e.g. intellectual explanations), eventually escape velocity is reached and you're in an entirely different emotional state. Airpl…

This thread is so HN.

Post -> Comment on Post -> Analysis of Comment -> Analysis of Analysis -> Analysis of the act of Analysis -> Question truth itself.

It's like that Wikipedia phenomenon where all articles lead to philosophy.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#312

Post by 0xEFF »

exolymph wrote: post #264
aantix wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how you revealed that you dislike joke comments on HN and unintentionally killed it at the same time.

I don't think the explanation killed the joke. As someone who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise, it made me able to appreciate the pun.

Dead as a doornail.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#313

Post by madengr »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #203
enraged_camel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asimov’s Foundation series is an excellent commentary on this very phenomenon. One of the antagonists is a galactic empire that is technologically advanced, but has been stagnating and decaying slowly as those in power start viewing scientists with disdain and distrust. Over time the empire loses the ability to develop new technology, and ends up with those who can only maintain/repair existing technology (which even…

> those in power start viewing scientists with disdain and distrust Are we talking about a novel or the current government in power in some prominent countries at the moment?

Well the good part is the, the scientists (aka priests) create a religion to control the primitives.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#314

Post by vkou »

outworlder wrote: post #291
vkou wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having used things that require technical support, I have to disagree. I'm not an idiot, I just don't have time to learn the idiosyncrasies of the problem that I have.

Are you able to determine if some piece of equipment you use every day is turned on or not, and able to accurately relay this information? If so, you are not part of the demographic the parent is talking about.

Can you even determine the difference between a common law, and a civil law system of justice? Some non-trivial percentage of the population, including some very intelligent people cannot understand that - something so incredibly fundamental to the society they live in.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#315

Post by booleandilemma »

stingraycharles wrote: post #209
jonsen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He will get away with small talk.

Ok normally I don’t approve of these types of comments on HN, but this was witty. For those who do not get the reference, Alan Kay is the inventor of SmallTalk: http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/

Gotta provide some context for the project management professionals who are reading this thread, I guess.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#316

Post by carapace »

jerf wrote: post #63
abetusk wrote: post #45

Boy does it take a while to get to the main topic of the title. From the article/podcast: ... THALER: Well, first of all, when we use this phrase libertarian paternalism, we’re using libertarian as an adjective. And so we’re trying to say we’re going to design policies that don’t force anyone to do anything. So the claim that we’re trying to tell people what to do, or force them to do things, is just completely wrong…

"suppose I’m walking across the park, and I see, “Oh, there’s a softball game over there. I think I’ll go watch that for a while,” Google Maps doesn’t scold me." I've noticed just in the past few days an update has been pushed so that now every time Google has to recalculate the route, instead just saying the new directions "turn right on third street", now it says "OK, turn right on third street", and I find myself…

My microwave display says "Enjoy your meal" when you open the door after it dings.

Every time under my breath I mutter something like, "Don't tell me what to do." or "Not because you said so." (And then I laugh at myself.)

I know the designers weren't trying to be the Sirius Cybernetics Corp.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#317

Post by jcutrell »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #77
jcutrell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, this is kind of my hope for a future job. I've wanted to practice behavior economics meets technological innovation for a long time now - but you're right, there doesn't seem to be a demand for this.

> but you're right, there doesn't seem to be a demand for this You mean outside the entire advertising industry? Now you might argue that advertising companies are more focused on selling ads to clients than optimizing the ad experience for victims, but it's an entire sector of the economy focused on exploiting the poor decision-making abilities of humans.

Yes, I think the lack of demand is for non-exploitative roles.

Of course, as long as we have had enough understanding that we can affect others, there has been a demand for exploitation through bias.

I think the hope here is that we would create positions that allow BE to benefit others AND businesses by helping people make better decisions. It sounds a bit utopian, but it's certainly not impossible that everyone could benefit from people making decisions that are beneficial to their well-being.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#318

Post by carapace »

I remember starting to study economics as a kid and thinking "this is garbage" for two main reasons, one of which is now addressed by behavioral economics, to wit: the models of human behavior they were using were ridiculous. The other reason is that economists occupy a critical nexus in the feedback loops in human affairs. The best operational economists accrue wealth and keep their science a secret as best they can, and as an obvious part of that exterior economics can be (and is) filled with fluff and nonsense. It is little better than numerology. It doesn't surprise me that Thaler "has been an irritant to mainstream economists." More like an embarrassment, pointing out their lack of grounding in reality.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#319

Post by deathanatos »

gdubs wrote: post #95

Reminded of this timeless Carl Sagan quote: "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

I am particularly fond of this sketch by Dara O'Briain on essentially this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic
Post reply on HN