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

Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#11

Post by kryogen1c »

HPsquared wrote: post #5
M95D wrote: post #2

It takes homeostasis, a biological mechanism, and tries to suggest that it applies to politics and economy, too. What a strange ideea... Yes, the decisions to intervene should be taken more carefully, but I don't think that interventions "often leads to worse outcomes". In fact, where I live, indecision and lack of interventions are a very big problem.

See also, Le Chatelier's principle. It kind of makes sense, if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" at work to hold it there.

> if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces"

I think this is one of those things that is True with a capital T.

If you start with the premise that life is valuable, it is eventually derivable. Life tries to exist, and since existence is path-dependent making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#12

Post by empthought »

kryogen1c wrote: post #11
HPsquared wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also, Le Chatelier's principle. It kind of makes sense, if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" at work to hold it there.

> if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" I think this is one of those things that is True with a capital T. If you start with the premise that life is valuable, it is eventually derivable. Life tries to exist, and since existence is path-dependent making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

I think you and the parent commenter are talking about the anthropic principle. It might be "derivable" but only in the particular situation in which we have found ourselves—and then it becomes less remarkable.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#13

Post by 4RealFreedom »

American politics are riddled with examples - look at the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. It seems to happen most with sweeping legislation. Of course, large legislation will have additional consequences because the point is it intervenes more. The flipside is that administrations that don't pass laws are referred to in derogatory ways - they are a lame duck. We've basically forced action, any action, no matter the consequences.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#18

Post by voldacar »

kryogen1c wrote: post #11
HPsquared wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also, Le Chatelier's principle. It kind of makes sense, if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" at work to hold it there.

> if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" I think this is one of those things that is True with a capital T. If you start with the premise that life is valuable, it is eventually derivable. Life tries to exist, and since existence is path-dependent making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

It is strictly true, in the sense that a stable equilibrium state is a potential well in a system's phase space.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#19

Post by m0llusk »

This misses the problem of scale. Often the only way to patch an existing system is to try small and localized changes and then propagate them slowly. Even correct changes may require unexpected related details to be in order for a successful result. Going slowly allows for analysis of related factors and anticipating range of variation.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#20

Post by m0llusk »

4RealFreedom wrote: post #13

American politics are riddled with examples - look at the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. It seems to happen most with sweeping legislation. Of course, large legislation will have additional consequences because the point is it intervenes more. The flipside is that administrations that don't pass laws are referred to in derogatory ways - they are a lame duck. We've basically forced action, any action, no mat…

That misses a lot of context. The Affordable Care Act is considered by many to be an attempt to meet medical care needs with a market solution while most competing ideas go a completely different route such as Single Payer. It isn't just a patch to a system, but an attempt to fit some difficult constraints. Portraying extremely complex systems as simple may be the most common form of the first failing listed here.
Post reply on HN