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

Computing belongs within the social sciences

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#51

Post by bassman9000 »

aruss wrote: post #21
travisoneill1 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When have those decades of research ever actually been applied to "create a platform that's more beneficial for society?"

You're joking right? You're proving the article's point. The social sciences have informed policymakers for decades. The US was founded by social scientists (as TFA defines them, the social sciences include philosophy and so on).

Ah, well, if TFA defines the Founders as social scientists, then I can call today's AR-15 a muskeet. Precisely one of the issues of today social sciences is the absolute perversion of language (on purpose).

You can make everything a social science with a bit of imagination.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#52

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

sharpneli wrote: post #43

Considering that Social Sciences are in midst of a replication crisis with no end in sight I'm not that sure they have anything useful to offer, except perhaps how to best do p-hacking to get results that one wants. The claim that computing is a social science because it has big effect on society is simply bollocks (This was explicitly claimed in the article, heck it had a subtitle "Why Computing Is a Social Science"…

Considering that Computer Sciences are in a software crisis since the 70ies, with no end in sight I'm not that sure they have anything useful to offer, except bloat, sidechannel attacks, cargo culting and enabling of BS-jobs, which they promised to eliminate.

I really don't get your point.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#53

Post by acituan »

kbit wrote: post #36
aruss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically that may have been true; I won't argue that point. The difference between the atom bomb and CS is that the latter has a ubiquity of access and reproducibility that subject it to completely different ethical and philosophical concerns. The atom bomb doesn't change or influence our understanding of how political discourse operates in modern democracies. Things like social media and GPT-3 do.

I'd like to add that, when building an atom bomb, you are well aware of what you're doing - why you're still doing it is an entirely different topic (an interesting one which, in fact, falls right into the social sciences). Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work. Their seemingly harmless and objective algorithms literally, although indirectly, cause de…

> Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work

I feel like this is coming from a naive socially illiterate nerd stereotype. They are smart people, they might as well know much more than you expect.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#54

Post by acituan »

kbit wrote: post #41
yarrel wrote: post #38

I see that the humanities are continuing with their unexamined sense of entitlement to colonize other disciplines. This obsession with teaching (tech) workers ethics is a bourgeois pastoral fantasy. Someone needs to read some Foucault.

A "bourgeois pastoral fantasy"? Can you expand on that? Shouldn't engineers who design social media algorithms have some basic knowledge of social dynamics and psychology?

> Shouldn't engineers who design social media algorithms have some basic knowledge of social dynamics and psychology?

Firstly, let’s not reduce decision making to something only software engineers do because typically product managers have huge, even the most, responsibility on product decisions.

Secondly, what makes you think they (incl. engineers) don’t have that basic knowledge? Most software people I know are autodidacts at heart and are interested in social domains just as much. These people are also fed the warm data from their social software systems and can robustly hypothesise on them (they have to) because features based on those hypotheses is applied back to real life next quarter.

If they are following dark patterns, it is not for lack of knowledge on social dynamics or psychology, but because they would follow normativities of growth and engagement rather than social good.

Looking to social sciences, there seems to be a huge variability on how reputable and reliable their knowledge making machinery nowadays works. Hoax paper crises demonstrated that there are at least some weak spots that are very gameable.

I don’t mean this as an insult to social sciences but we could also say if engineers attended church or participated in any religious or spiritual practice to deepen their moral understandings it could be a force of good, but we can’t prescribe that exposure because it would be too ideological. I fear the same might be the motivation here.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#55

Post by aruss »

bassman9000 wrote: post #51
aruss wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're joking right? You're proving the article's point. The social sciences have informed policymakers for decades. The US was founded by social scientists (as TFA defines them, the social sciences include philosophy and so on).

Ah, well, if TFA defines the Founders as social scientists, then I can call today's AR-15 a muskeet. Precisely one of the issues of today social sciences is the absolute perversion of language (on purpose). You can make everything a social science with a bit of imagination.

Isn't this just being pedantic? How is TFA's point changed by substituting "social sciences and other humanities" for "social science"?

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

aruss wrote: post #55
bassman9000 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, well, if TFA defines the Founders as social scientists, then I can call today's AR-15 a muskeet. Precisely one of the issues of today social sciences is the absolute perversion of language (on purpose). You can make everything a social science with a bit of imagination.

Isn't this just being pedantic? How is TFA's point changed by substituting "social sciences and other humanities" for "social science"?

“Social sciences and other humanities” would add an additional problem because social sciences aren't humanities.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#57

Post by aruss »

acituan wrote: post #53
kbit wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to add that, when building an atom bomb, you are well aware of what you're doing - why you're still doing it is an entirely different topic (an interesting one which, in fact, falls right into the social sciences). Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work. Their seemingly harmless and objective algorithms literally, although indirectly, cause de…

> Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work I feel like this is coming from a naive socially illiterate nerd stereotype. They are smart people, they might as well know much more than you expect.

The number of post-hoc internal memos and studies clearly shows that there are many consequences that FB engineers did not anticipate (though FB is not unique in this regard; consider how YouTube's recommendation algorithm feeds misinformation & outrage).

The whole point of TFA is that pure intelligence (particularly "computational thinking" type of intelligence) is no substitute for the knowledge and methodology already explored by various humanities and social science fields.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#58

Post by noslenwerdna »

aruss wrote: post #57
acituan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work I feel like this is coming from a naive socially illiterate nerd stereotype. They are smart people, they might as well know much more than you expect.

The number of post-hoc internal memos and studies clearly shows that there are many consequences that FB engineers did not anticipate (though FB is not unique in this regard; consider how YouTube's recommendation algorithm feeds misinformation & outrage). The whole point of TFA is that pure intelligence (particularly "computational thinking" type of intelligence) is no substitute for the knowledge and methodology alr…

However, can a social science framework actually predict what would happen, rather than postdict (after it happened).

If so, why didn't they make such predictions in 2012 during Facebook's IPO?

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#59

Post by noslenwerdna »

kbit wrote: post #36
aruss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically that may have been true; I won't argue that point. The difference between the atom bomb and CS is that the latter has a ubiquity of access and reproducibility that subject it to completely different ethical and philosophical concerns. The atom bomb doesn't change or influence our understanding of how political discourse operates in modern democracies. Things like social media and GPT-3 do.

I'd like to add that, when building an atom bomb, you are well aware of what you're doing - why you're still doing it is an entirely different topic (an interesting one which, in fact, falls right into the social sciences). Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work. Their seemingly harmless and objective algorithms literally, although indirectly, cause de…

What deaths? I would tend to disagree that the algorithms caused deaths in any event, unless they were maybe physically brought about by the algorithm in some way... You might as well say electricity or the internet itself caused those deaths.

Re: Computing belongs within the social sciences

#60

Post by acituan »

aruss wrote: post #57
acituan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software engineers at facebook, on the other hand, are likely not aware of the full impact of their work I feel like this is coming from a naive socially illiterate nerd stereotype. They are smart people, they might as well know much more than you expect.

The number of post-hoc internal memos and studies clearly shows that there are many consequences that FB engineers did not anticipate (though FB is not unique in this regard; consider how YouTube's recommendation algorithm feeds misinformation & outrage). The whole point of TFA is that pure intelligence (particularly "computational thinking" type of intelligence) is no substitute for the knowledge and methodology alr…

> The whole point of TFA is that pure intelligence (particularly "computational thinking" type of intelligence) is no substitute for the knowledge and methodology already explored by various humanities and social science fields.

This is such a false dichotomy. There exists many, many technical programs that go to field and do that type of "social" research, using the precisely the same methodologies, knowledge of which end up with UX designers, product designers, product managers etc. This TFA readily admits. In other words, anything that social sciences can offer is already being incorporated into those programs. (I am talking about likes of human computer interaction, user experience, information processing science, network science, and tons of other hybrid programs)

Post reply on HN