4 ms·

That transactional view of love is exactly the sort of technomyopia I would expect from the HN crowd.

by jordanb 10y ago

FLUX-YOU 10y ago
What's weird is you could probably find people to buy into that model on both sides, making it completely valid.
- 1337biz 10y ago
  Isn't that called a sugar daddy/mommy relationship?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means, as opposed to continuing in the usual ambiguous, gut-feeling-driven thinking? I for one like this kind of "technomyopia", because it works off a framework that lets humans eventually figure things out.
- edmccard 10y ago
  >So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means... No, to laugh at people who think that because they have a hammer, that every problem is a nail, and maybe also the people who believe that the analogy is really really true, so long as you're using the magic hammer of technology.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology, please share. You may save the world and win a few prizes with that.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Social problems tend to require a different, fuzzier toolkit that involves emotional labour. Especially when you're working with areas that are not broadly understood. You're starting from the assumption that only those types of solution are valid, whereas most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain. Starting from the assumption that every worthwhile problem must have a scientific or technical solution is exactly the hammer looking for nail that comments here are complaining about.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        I'm not arguing that emotions are to be ignored, or that the area is understood. It's not. But still, science is literally, if broadly, defined as the method of figuring things out that actually works. Maybe the OP was just meaning to criticize the app idea, but the way they wrote, it looks like a general criticism of technology as a problem solver - criticism I believe is naïve and unwarranted. > most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain I disagree with that, but that's a longer discussion about technological determinism.
    - edmccard 10y ago
      >If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology I think it's possible to believe in the efficacy of science and technology, while at the same time doubting that crossing OKCupid with TaskRabbit will usher in "a utopia that would fulfill people's need to be needed by each other" (which is the concept that started this whole subthread)
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Or course. I also doubt the effiacy of that particular idea. But the OP started going about "HN's technomyopia", which is a quite broader thing than just an app idea.
- zaptheimpaler 10y ago
  I get where you're coming from. Its just that technology is not the right framework to attack all problems. The app OP mentioned is essentially a tool to track trading favors between people - its not anywhere close to "love". In fact the addiction to tech, social media, smartphones etc. is making us spend less real face-face time with people (well-documented), so I would say its precisely the wrong tool to use. Not saying we should give up, but this is a social problem, better analyzed with more apt tools like social science. Relationships grow with time & investment in interacting with someone else - given that, no amount of "apps" or tech magic can make a fundamental difference.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    It was probbably a joke, but such an app could be incredibly valuable to those who were perpetually ostracized in their youth and never learned how to interact. Simple things like, "Thank him for this," or, "Tell her she's really good at that," might not even occur to some people who were never exposed to anyone who demonstrated those things.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      it would certainly be a good cue system for people with mild autism/aspbergers, or social difficulties.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    All fair points. I was addressing the very general criticism OP expressed. Even the social science you mentioned, when done right, is part of the "science and technology" toolbox.
malux85 10y ago
It would have to be atomic, isolated and consistent.
antisthenes 10y ago
As opposed to biomyopia, where love just magically arises from ether and happiness and babies are created, without regard for anything else.

That transactional view of love is exactly the sort of technomyopia I would expect from the HN crowd.

by jordanb 10y ago

That transactional view of love is exactly the sort of technomyopia I would expect from the HN crowd.

FLUX-YOU 10y ago

What's weird is you could probably find people to buy into that model on both sides, making it completely valid.

1337biz 10y ago
Isn't that called a sugar daddy/mommy relationship?

TeMPOraL 10y ago

So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means, as opposed to continuing in the usual ambiguous, gut-feeling-driven thinking? I for one like this kind of "technomyopia", because it works off a framework that lets humans eventually figure things out.

edmccard 10y ago
>So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means... No, to laugh at people who think that because they have a hammer, that every problem is a nail, and maybe also the people who believe that the analogy is really really true, so long as you're using the magic hammer of technology.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology, please share. You may save the world and win a few prizes with that.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Social problems tend to require a different, fuzzier toolkit that involves emotional labour. Especially when you're working with areas that are not broadly understood. You're starting from the assumption that only those types of solution are valid, whereas most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain. Starting from the assumption that every worthwhile problem must have a scientific or technical solution is exactly the hammer looking for nail that comments here are complaining about.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I'm not arguing that emotions are to be ignored, or that the area is understood. It's not. But still, science is literally, if broadly, defined as the method of figuring things out that actually works. Maybe the OP was just meaning to criticize the app idea, but the way they wrote, it looks like a general criticism of technology as a problem solver - criticism I believe is naïve and unwarranted. > most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain I disagree with that, but that's a longer discussion about technological determinism.
  - edmccard 10y ago
    >If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology I think it's possible to believe in the efficacy of science and technology, while at the same time doubting that crossing OKCupid with TaskRabbit will usher in "a utopia that would fulfill people's need to be needed by each other" (which is the concept that started this whole subthread)
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Or course. I also doubt the effiacy of that particular idea. But the OP started going about "HN's technomyopia", which is a quite broader thing than just an app idea.
zaptheimpaler 10y ago
I get where you're coming from. Its just that technology is not the right framework to attack all problems. The app OP mentioned is essentially a tool to track trading favors between people - its not anywhere close to "love". In fact the addiction to tech, social media, smartphones etc. is making us spend less real face-face time with people (well-documented), so I would say its precisely the wrong tool to use. Not saying we should give up, but this is a social problem, better analyzed with more apt tools like social science. Relationships grow with time & investment in interacting with someone else - given that, no amount of "apps" or tech magic can make a fundamental difference.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It was probbably a joke, but such an app could be incredibly valuable to those who were perpetually ostracized in their youth and never learned how to interact. Simple things like, "Thank him for this," or, "Tell her she's really good at that," might not even occur to some people who were never exposed to anyone who demonstrated those things.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    it would certainly be a good cue system for people with mild autism/aspbergers, or social difficulties.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  All fair points. I was addressing the very general criticism OP expressed. Even the social science you mentioned, when done right, is part of the "science and technology" toolbox.

malux85 10y ago

It would have to be atomic, isolated and consistent.

antisthenes 10y ago

As opposed to biomyopia, where love just magically arises from ether and happiness and babies are created, without regard for anything else.