Live data from Hacker News

Work on Unimportant Problems (2012)

yosefk.com

21–22 of 22 posts

Re: Work on Unimportant Problems (2012)

#21
I often take the perspective (with my loosely anti-capitalist sympathies, admittedly) that the mechanistic forces of capitalism aren't "bad", but simply aren't curious about certain things in the world. The system is just a bit incurious about some very human things, and just like an emotionally incurious person might ask less questions of a peer, so too does our dominant system act in some parts of human affairs.

I often tell friends that I enjoy working on neglected things that capitalism isn't curious about. This domain is a whole subset of reality, which has specific properties, especially in relation to network structure.

I would say that much of what's described in this post is to work on things that capitalism isn't _yet_ curious about.

While this is neat to suggest, I believe that maybe some things in the world (that are worth working on) might categorically be impossible for capitalism to become curious about -- capitalism is only eager to explore domains where value can [eventually] be skimmed by occupying a structural hole[1] (in other words, a choke point) in the social and/or information graph.

But some innovations are such that they only manifest and take form within resilient and redundant "clique"/"support" networks (in social capital theory parlance [2]). These networks by their very defintion lack a clear choke-point. To capture value there, someone must either (1) find the elusive but existing choke-points or (2) distort the whole system into produce a chokepoint. But this might be like capturing and compacting a cloud -- you force a phase transition and no longer have the thing you started with.

Anyhow, thanks for the chance to reflect :)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network#Structural_hole... [2]: p. 408, fig 8 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.652...

Re: Work on Unimportant Problems (2012)

#22
post #21

I often take the perspective (with my loosely anti-capitalist sympathies, admittedly) that the mechanistic forces of capitalism aren't "bad", but simply aren't curious about certain things in the world. The system is just a bit incurious about some very human things, and just like an emotionally incurious person might ask less questions of a peer, so too does our dominant system act in some parts of human affairs. I…

This is an interesting hypothesis about capitalism (also seems to go against “capitalist realism” theory). Can you give a few examples of what the areas that capitalism cannot get curious about are? What would be the common characteristics?
Post reply on HN