Comment by epolanski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by epolanski | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you're missing the forest for the tree.

Data promised to improve lifes, it has done so in many aspects, but also has made countless things worse.

From physical and digital products squeezing the last cent instead of improving user's experience, algorithms getting every single second of your attention, from deciding the kind of music and tv shows getting produced, to the kind of dull ever repeating style of everything really on every corner of the planet from hotels to restaurant and menus it's all a data-driven conversion to the mean in boring-and-safe or money-squeezing fashion.

Data has entered sports and transformed them from the times of money ball. Basket, soccer, football, are all much less enjoyable and creative because again, it's all about applying data.

And yes, data has entered politics at a level it could not before computing power and data collection and our understanding of human manipulation didn't reach those levels.

It has understood you only need 50%+1 of the votes and efforts to get 50%+2 are a waste and less efficient.

So politicians, especially in weaker democracies characterized by winner-takes-all mechanics, are incentivized to be divisive, not representing the majority of the citizens.

Again, you only want 50%+1 of the votes, if you trying to get a single more you're dispersing your efforts and decreasing the chances to win.

> And yes, data has entered politics at a level it could not before computing power and data collection and our understanding of human manipulation didn't reach those levels. It has understood you only need 50%+1 of the votes and efforts to get 50%+2 are a waste and less efficient. > > So politicians, especially in weaker democracies characterized by winner-takes-all mechanics, are incentivized to be divisive, not representing the majority of the citizens.

This happens to some extent, particularly in the US's electoral system. But I'd argue the incentive for divisive politics is coming mostly from the fleeting nature of our communication media (plus legitimate grievances that mainstream politicians were out of touch with for a long time).

Twitter was already a politically destabilizing force even before data analysis and manipulation caught up to it. The medium itself punishes constructive interactions and ideas.

The problem with "data" as discussed here it is that powerful organizations and people own it and common people don't. It's an instrument of power for the already powerful.

Data is what uncreatives turn to when out of ideas.

An equally cynical but opposite take is that data is what you turn to when you want to dispel with the mythology, hand-waving, and general bullshit that self-described “creatives” wrap themselves in in order to avoid admitting that they may not actually understand why something works or doesn’t work (and by extension, that their success may be dumb luck rather than talent).

I don’t think truth aligns with either extreme. Both are approaches that have their place. But if it was an “uncreative” with no ideas that simply took the time to look and discovered that the three point shot was absurdly more efficient than basically any other shot in basketball, what does that say about all the “creative” coaching geniuses who failed to discover it in half a century? And if basketball is now “less creative” because of it, that’s an indictment of the fact that the league refuses to address the underlying issue.

I think it’s telling that no one bemoans the fact that we design our medicine using data driven methods. I’m sure it would spice up our lives if the pharma companies dropped the boring data analysis and statistical methods and just slapped some compounds together through free-flowing creative passion!

> admitting that they may not actually understand why something works or doesn’t work

something that data can't tell you either!

Data is what neurotic people hide behind because they can't stand not being in control. Often to disastrous results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy

It is often not the beginning of processes but the end of them. This is the problem with a lot of AI, i.e. it takes data and mixes it up instead of doing things afresh.

Creativity doesn't win elections. Getting 50%+1 of the votes does.

And you do that today with maths, algorithms and quick information analysis and response.

The response is where creativity lives. Everything falls apart if you don’t have the juice to capitalize on the insights you got from the data.

Trump’s team knew exactly where to focus their efforts for 2016. That was half of it

The other half was all the rallies and stops where he literally workshopped all of his slogans in front of an audience. That’s where “lock her up” and a dozen other creative insults and slogans were tested. Like a comedian on tour, he had to work on his material.

You can say a lot about him, but he is charismatic and none of that is data driven. He has instinct on how to hurt people. He has always been a salesman and con artist. These are creative skills

The data gave him the audience but the human angle got him those votes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com