Hacker News Reader

Comment by vannevar | Hacker News Reader

"All models are wrong; but some are useful." - George Box

Even particles aren't actually particles, nor spin states actually spin states. The map is not the territory. Physics models are only useful (and "correct") to the extent that they make successful predictions. If the adaptation of these principles to social communication yields useful predictions, then however inaccurate they may be in reproducing the exact nature of what they model, they are nonetheless useful and therefore worthwhile. FTA: "In summary, we review both empirical findings based on massive data analytics and theoretical advances, highlighting the valuable insights obtained from physics-based efforts to investigate these phenomena of high societal impact."

View on HN

Natural scientific models use the vocabulary of pre-existing intuitions we have from interacting with the world: particles, rotation, etc. We try to simplify predictions by mapping experimental outcomes using things we already know and can directly perceive.

Using these abstractions as foundation for models of social dynamics and modern media feels a little wrong: the mapping is imperfect and incomplete, and as these physical models inevitably become outdated it will be more and more difficult to make sense of social dynamics models that use these physical models as a given.

Agreed. But when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The word “some” in the quote from Box is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

If a model is useful, I’d like to see it being used (outside academia, where there’s minimal penalty for complexity and a high emphasis on novelty).

If models like these are widely adopted at social media companies or news agencies, it’s fair to say OP’s take isn’t valid. Otherwise they may have a point.

Agreed. But these kinds of models almost always start in academia, that's one of the big reasons we have academia, to explore ideas that may (or may not) be useful. My point was that you can't prejudge the usefulness of a model simply because it doesn't fully replicate all the complexity of the phenomenon being modeled.

These ideas are used, and they influence what policy is crafted.

You can’t predict what an individual will do, but work like this kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited.

There’s a paper from 2016 that shows how posts saturate/cascade through conspiracy communities and that it has distinct cascade dynamics. This wasn’t a model, it was a description of observed behavior.

Or take some relatively recent work from Harvard, which suggests that while our capacity to create misinformation has increased in both quantity and quality, its consumption rate seems to be stable.

> kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited.

It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these pseudo-scientific "revelations" don't kill those "inaccurate ideological positions", because that's the whole point of human free will, there's no "accurate ideological position" when it comes to the day-to-day life, or to societal life in general.

I have used them for moderation and policy, back when I used to moderate.

I retired ideological beliefs in favor of reality when I went and found the data and research.

Stating “it doesn’t”, does not convert an opinion into fact.

That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline.

My intuition is that you will find the research complimentary to your ideas, and not in opposition.

> That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline.

You're correct on that, as I find that applying the word "science", or "research", or "paper", to the day-to-day life, like to news article in this case, is not science per se, and unfortunately I don't have time to lose on drivel that paints itself as science (but which it is not science, as I mentioned above).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com