Hacker News Reader

Comment by BucketSort | Hacker News Reader

What was your reasoning that lead you to believe that the social/political problems of the world won't be fixed with technology? I personally have come to the opposite conclusion. I think we need systems to help us reason about and model various social and political issues. Many issues of today go unresolved because they are hidden by complexity. We need systems to help us navigate this complexity. I'm tired of seeing people talk nonsense in circles, I want to create systems that allow them to craft their arguments rigorously without the need for rigorous training. If we can help people reason about problems, would that help us at all?

View on HN

We have seen demonstrable evidence for over twenty years now that if you build a way to more easily inform yourself on reality, facts, historical accuracy, etc that people would rather use that system to justify their own preconceptions and biases than seek out truth that might influence their beliefs.

Technology can only supplement a mindset where people are agreeable to solving problems in the first place. Most social and political woes are intentional, someone is "winning" for someone else's "losing", and often neither party wants the arrangement to change even if from the outsider perspective it would be "so easy" to fix, especially technically.

I'm not talking merely about platforms for discovering information, I'm talking about platforms for thinking. Have you ever seen https://www.bayesialab.com? I went to one of their workshops in NYC and they produced quite a convincing example of this.

The economy/society is not a zero sum game as you are suggesting. It's a cooperative game. In some local scenarios it is a zero sum game, but to look at the whole economy/society like that is misleading. But yes, if people are looking to destroy each other, then yes, technology will just facilitate that. It is in most people's best interest to cooperate though.

So you're saying even if we do have platforms for thinking that help people navigate complex issues, it wouldn't have any economic or political benefit?

>We have seen demonstrable evidence for over twenty years now that if you build a way to more easily inform yourself on reality, facts, historical accuracy, etc that people would rather use that system to justify their own preconceptions and biases than seek out truth that might influence their beliefs.

I'm fairly certain the problem is the systems are written to reward those behaviors. It's technically not hard to solve that, but modern social media companies have this baked into their business model.

(Yes, I have a scheme in mind that solves it, sorry not sharing :-)

You don't need social media to learn that climate change is a thing. Just read Wikipedia. Look at the citations. And yet, a sizable portion of the US public believes it's a hoax.

Actually the problem with climate change deniers is that they doubt the source and cannot reason about the issue themselves. This is actually one example of needing a system to help people reason. Just telling someone something will not convince someone unless they trust the authority of the person telling them OR if they can reach the conclusion themselves. Thanks for this comment, it actually made me further realize how important such systems are.

Sure, sure. Yes, it would. And you'll find your proposal gets shot down and derided by those above you in the hierarchy whom it would negatively impact, your desk moved to the basement and your favorite stapler confiscated. Politics will block the change that would fix said politics. That's why it's politics. That's why it works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com