Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewlgood | Hacker News Reader

While I understand the sentiment, it is an incredibly broad statement. What defines better / worse for you? On a macro level, it seems the world is getter better every year - fewer people die of starvation, lethal diseases are cured or rate of spread slowed at least, less man hours are required to feed, cloth, and shelter the human race.

That being said, it seems many people are upset because the benefits are now evenly spread. That seems to me to be a very philosophical topic. There are many articles about income inequality, wealth inequality, etc. They do not seem to acknowledge that being able to watch tv, fly in an airplane, have air conditioning are things kings and queens did not have 100 years ago.

How about picking some objective metrics that you care about and see how they are trending? It will give you a more objective starting point to ask the question of whether things are getting better or worse.

View on HN

I wish it were that simple. Income inequality is an objectively measurable metric, but that doesn't seem to pass your muster and for reasons that aren't entirely clear. It's also worthwhile that subjective experience can be placed on objective grounds through the process of operationalization, so the distinction isn't quite as sharp as people think.

Even the process of labeling some things as objective and others as subjective is up for debate. Everyone wants to claim their metrics are objective while everyone else's are subjective. I know you're hinting at "scientific" or "technocratic" approaches, but it's important to also understand how even the process of selecting objective measures can be polluted with subjectivity. I almost want to claim there's no escaping the subjectivity trap, but maybe I'm being too pessimistic.

The metrics we select and how we measure them is an inherently political thing.

How we measure inflation is a great example of this, we choose to include some things, but exclude others because if we had a true measure of inflation, the government would have to pay out more for social security payments (see Boskin commission - https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html)

I think kelseyfrog has it better with the term 'subjective' rather than 'political.' Different people will have different morals and different views of what a well operating society looks like. It does not mean they are political, just different.

To add, in fact, labeling one's opponent's message as "political" is a subjectivizing speech act. The intent is nearly always to discredit. I wish this wasn't true, but I've been on the internet long enough to see this pattern play out hundreds of times (no I'm not citing sources for this, and no, I'm not making an absolutist statement where a single counterexample refutes it - it's about tendencies :) )

I do not disagree that income inequality is objectively measurable. My point is your choice of whom to include for comparison (e.g. US inequality is very different than comparing US vs Yemen inequality. Moreover, low inequality with everyone below the poverty line may not be preferred to higher inequality but everyone above the poverty line. These are all personal, philosophical decisions - there is no objective right or wrong.

My point in suggesting metrics is they force you to think about what is important and to look for data to measure it. This helps to mitigate the "I feel bad..." scenario that could simply the be the result of negative press cycles.

For clarity, I agree with you that there is no escape from the subjectivity trap as only you can declare what is important to you and your view how society/the world should work.

> My point in suggesting metrics is they force you to think about what is important and to look for data to measure it. This helps to mitigate the "I feel bad..." scenario that could simply the be the result of negative press cycles.

Agreed. But, I'm not even sure the "I feel bad" part is outside the realm of examination.

I'll make a point (poorly) that there is some innate "fairness" heuristic that we share with our close relatives[1], especially those that are highly social. Even if we're, on paper, "objectively" better off, if that "fairness" heuristic doesn't agree with reality then we risk social instability - that the heuristic if left unchecks results in unrest, violence, and revolt.

Do we have an responsibility to oblige these instincts even if they are irrational? What if not doing so results in real negative consequences?

1. The video where one monkey gets cucumber and the other grapes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_9RjDqJ7Zs

It's a measurable metric but so is the ratio of pisces to aquariuses in congress. The question is how does that metric affect things you actually care about? Like sure it's weird that Bezos has the wealth of a nation state, but am I personally harmed by that? Perhaps in some theoretical sense a more equitable distribution might lead to some improvement but when you compare it to things like climate change or rogue ai it doesn't seem like much of an existential threat. So long as people are living longer, happier, healthier lives with new opportunities they did not have before, we're on an upward trajectory. It may not be the best of all possible trajectories, but it doesn't have to be.

I agree one could pick silly metrics. The point is to pick a metric that you have thought about and care about the results. It is difficult to discuss/debate the proposition "I feel weird about the direction of society." There are so many aspects to discuss. Technology impacts a great many of them. My suggestion is to sit down and think about a metric you would like to improve. Why do you want it to improve? What has it been doing over some period of time? What do you think it will do in the future? This can help step away from simply having feelings because the press reports the climate is changing, ai is taking away jobs, kim kardashian broke up with pete davidson.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com