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

Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 279 posts

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#171

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

timr wrote: post #164
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point, but it's got me thinking about how the early mask guidance was so wrong. Early in the pandemic, virtually all the major health orgs spread the message "masks for the public don't work". Of course, the real issue was that there was a valid fear that there would be a run on masks and not enough for healthcare workers. There was never any significant evidence masks for the public don't work, on…

> There was never any significant evidence masks for the public don't work, on the contrary there was at least some flu-based evidenced that they were beneficial, but at best you could say "we don't know" We aren't supposed to make decisions on medical interventions based on "evidence that X doesn't work". Otherwise, we'd default to just doing stuff until we had evidence that it was worse than doing nothing at all. L…

To be clear, I'm not arguing that health care orgs should have recommended masks early in the pandemic. What I am saying is their adamant declarations of "masks don't work for the public", which note is an affirmative declaration, were false, and never had any supporting evidence. My question is about whether this "simpler, un-nuanced" explanation in fact complicated things in the longer run.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#172

Post by timr »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #171
timr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was never any significant evidence masks for the public don't work, on the contrary there was at least some flu-based evidenced that they were beneficial, but at best you could say "we don't know" We aren't supposed to make decisions on medical interventions based on "evidence that X doesn't work". Otherwise, we'd default to just doing stuff until we had evidence that it was worse than doing nothing at all. L…

To be clear, I'm not arguing that health care orgs should have recommended masks early in the pandemic. What I am saying is their adamant declarations of "masks don't work for the public", which note is an affirmative declaration, were false, and never had any supporting evidence. My question is about whether this "simpler, un-nuanced" explanation in fact complicated things in the longer run.

Yes, I know. We're basically in agreement on the broader points, but I don't agree with your second sentence, and you seem to have the opposite bias in terms of how to act under uncertainty:

> What I am saying is their adamant declarations of "masks don't work for the public", which note is an affirmative declaration, were false, and never had any supporting evidence.

There's no such thing as an affirmative declaration of the null hypothesis. You either have proof that something works, or you do not. If you do not have evidence that X works, or the evidence is ambiguous, your conclusion is the null hypothesis (that X doesn't work)...but that doesn't mean that you have to scream it from the rooftops. You can just say "we don't know; the evidence is poor."

The only accurate thing you can say in the "mask debate" is that strong declarations both ways are wrong. The original declarations were wrong, and the declarations now are also wrong. If you look at the data you can't judge either way (with the exception of cloth masks, which are looking quite poor), and so we must equivocate.

The only way you can possibly go on this issue and still be correct is to use nuance. And if you do that, then it's a question of how you use medical evidence to advocate for interventions.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#173

Post by zestyping »

tharkun__ wrote: post #111
88913527 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to consider this question with empathy: imagine times where you replied to emails partially, answering some (one), but not all questions. Ask yourself why you did a partial reply. Then, when you ask questions of others, apply those learnings. For me, I tend to 'jump' to the first answer that comes to mind, without reading the full nuance, likely because I'm optimizing at replying sooner, so I can move ont…

imagine times where you replied to emails partially It will be hard for someone that always replies to the first thing only to empathize with this but: This has literally never happened to me. As in, I have never replied partially to something in an email. You will get an answer to each of your items. Granted, you may not get the answer you were looking for but I will answer each and every one, even if it's just a "I…

I applaud you. This is the standard I try to live up to and want my teammates to aspire to.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#174

Post by Vetch »

Animats wrote: post #124

This is an observation that goes back to at least Cicero.[1] Cicero on the primary goal of oratory: "As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them..." Cicero describes the pro…

I bet this objectively can't be helped.

Nuance requires representing uncertainty and is higher complexity from accounting for multiple special cases. Placing more cognitive load and attentional demands on receiver.

Human communication is lossy and decoding can be non-trivial inference. Given that everyone comes with differing priors, the more finer grained and complex details are required in reconstructing message intent, the more likely it is to be misconstruected. Failing to attend to a single core detail can rend meaning.

At scale the chance for errors to propagate without correction increases.

Getting rid of fine grained details and communicating a lower entropy message inline with a crowd's biases also ensures it's more likely to survive in a form close to original intent. A good manipulative orator focuses less on truth or content and more on minimizing mismatch between receiver mental states and orator's directional preferences.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#176

Post by urthor »

Semi-related:

The amount of complaining about "dumb management" amongst software engineers is truly out of control I find.

Newsflash, usually your principal engineer and VP are a lot cleverer than you, on average. They're at the top of a process to weed out idiots and are paid a multiple of your salary.

I usually start from the position of "my VP is a smart and clever person" and work backwards, ALWAYS. It seems like this attitude is exceptionally rare though.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#177

Post by pseudalopex »

jiggawatts wrote: post #138
loteck wrote: post #117

If Dan is right (and I think he is), have a stiff drink nearby and then think about how his point applies to something complicated that is life and death, such as conveying information to the public about a rampant virus.

To me it was eye-opening to see just how bad people were at understanding what they were told in the clear, simplified language of public statements regarding COVID. I don't just mean "lay people", I mean the relatively well-educated HN crowd and even some medical professionals misunderstood what was said. Across the entire group, literally every part of what was publicly said by government agencies was misinterprete…

> For example, the "We don't recommend the general public wear masks at this time" was consistently misinterpreted to mean "Masks don't work", which is not what was said at all.

> The full nuanced statement was: "The CURRENT scientific evidence that is available does not support (OR deny!) that mask wearing by (specifically) the general public is (cost) effective enough to legally mandate. ALSO, at THIS TIME there is insufficient supply of masks, AND UNTIL supply can be increased the masks should be prioritised for health workers (that are trained to wear them properly)."

100% false. The statements were about what individuals should do. Not what governments would mandate. And some authorities said masks don't work expressly. "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"[1]

> People got especially confused by the "current scientific evidence does not support", because to them that sounds like "scientists say it doesn't work". That's not what that says at all, it's just a statement to say that not enough studies have been done at all to say anything one way or another confidently.

Current scientific evidence showed masks were effective for closely related coronaviruses. Do you doubt they would have recommended masks without a shortage?

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20200301144229/https://twitter.co...

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#178

Post by modernpink »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #143
Animats wrote: post #124

This is an observation that goes back to at least Cicero.[1] Cicero on the primary goal of oratory: "As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them..." Cicero describes the pro…

That's an interesting quotation, but it doesn't sound like the problem with Curio's was too much nuance. If anything, very plain (albeit clear) speech has a lack of nuance.

You've found yourself in the "95%"

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#180

Post by robryan »

88913527 wrote: post #121
tharkun__ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imagine times where you replied to emails partially It will be hard for someone that always replies to the first thing only to empathize with this but: This has literally never happened to me. As in, I have never replied partially to something in an email. You will get an answer to each of your items. Granted, you may not get the answer you were looking for but I will answer each and every one, even if it's just a "I…

I don't think this is practically much different then answering one thing. If you give one answer and 3 "I'll get back to you on that"'s-- this creates a promise of a future asynchronous answer, which is only as good as your word. People often have too many tasks, so to get those remaining items on your queue, they'll have to ask you again. As the recipient, it's more challenging to receive the future promise of an a…

The difference is as a sender I would know that you parsed each of my questions, understood them and decided to either not answer them now or just never answer them. Replying to one is ambiguous, if it was actually important it just leads to having to follow up again, restating everything that wasn't acknowledged.
Post reply on HN