5 ms·

Empirically, interesting usage of the word. What exactly are you arguing for? We can be objective but we have access to a rich and beautiful subjectivity. It's

Empirically, interesting usage of the word. What exactly are you arguing for? We can be objective but we have access to a rich and beautiful subjectivity. It's interesting in all these "measurable" behaviors there is no room for measuring an individual's suffering, which is quite real, but it seems those making the decisions are far removed from it.

bluGill 8y ago
I want personalization if done right. A co-worker went to try a new restaurant, and ordered his drink. The bar tender made his drink as ordered, and then realized that there was only one person in town who ordered that drink and what he wanted was slightly different from what was ordered. Because she knew what he wanted she remade the drink to be exactly what the customer wanted not what the waitress wrote down. (she delivered the drink personally just to verify that it really was the customer she thought it was and not a new guy who might have wanted it as ordered, which is how I heard the story)
- haskellandchill 8y ago
  That’s a lot of effort for a drink that is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, but sure you could probably raise a couple million while real problems go unanswered. I think that is my problem with all the efforts on personalization, we should be working on more meaningful problems with open data analysis on high impact social projects. It doesn’t pay well which is the most exquisite torture of capitalism.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Of course what everyone else practises is relatively unimportant but your little pet social project is meaningful. Sure, buddy. The fact that craftsmanship in this role can be rewarded is a fantastic thing. The people who can do things well can meet the people who want those things done well.
    - swirepe 8y ago
      >Sure, buddy. Don't do that.
    - haskellandbbq 8y ago
      I seek to minimize suffering. This can be in transportation, housing, healthcare, education, nutrition, or legal fields. These have a disproportionate impact on our lives and are neglected with low salaries. How does this make sense? I'm disappointed you view this as a pet project. I disagree that craft for the sake of craft is fantastic but I would not personally attack you for it, if you have the safety net you are welcome to pursue what interests you find rewarding. Many do not have the economy of doing so, they are who I work for.
      - samatman 8y ago
        Don't switch accounts like this.
        haskellandchill 8y ago
        I was slowbanned and wanted to respond, not sure what to do in that case.
        taejo 8y ago
        "I was banned from the club and wanted to go in anyway [so I broke in through a window], not sure what to do in that case."
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 8y ago
      Personal nastiness breaks the site guidelines and will eventually get your account banned, so please edit it out of what you post here. If you'd (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it. The comment would be just fine with just the second paragraph.
- cuspycode 8y ago
  This is a good story that illustrates the problem very well. I don't want to be treated according to what my statistical cohort in a certain particular context suggests. But I have no problem with a personalized treatment from my bank personnel, from my cleaning staff, or from the undertaker. Or from the bartender who knows me. Personalization != probabilistic statistical match.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
What exactly are you arguing for? I'm arguing that lamenting "mechanization" of social interaction - whether between corporate employee and client as in this example, or even between individuals - is akin to appealing to ether as a virtue of the universe. If interactions between actors can be measured (which they can to some level of specificity in certain contexts), and the desires of the actors can be understood to such a degree (which we're starting to be able to do), then we can model actions which increase or reduce the likelihood of desired outcome, and following from that can produce and optimize decision support systems that nudge users toward some mutually beneficial state that may have otherwise been opaque to both actors. People seem to hate this idea because it basically puts hard determinism right in their face - in that your past behaviors if known well enough should be predictive of future actions ceterus paribus. It's often argued that, such a granularity of measurement in social dimensions is impossible technically, or the fact of being measured changes their behavior. I wouldn't argue either of those to be untrue, only that it need not be perfect to increase the overall optimization of the system. So instead of saying, yes lets use measurement to optimize our system of interactions across commerce and relations, people bristle at the mere concept of social engineering in the Popperian sense of the term because it feels restrictive to our sense of "free will." I argue the opposite, that doing such would simply make us more aware of our predilections and much more likely to be able to align them across groups.
- hushlittleone 8y ago
  That's interesting. I violently disagree but haven't worked out a constructive philosophical position yet. Thanks for the well-thought description.
  - skygazer 8y ago
    There was a book called Nudge that takes up this topic to some extent, basically hacking people's decisions in "beneficial" ways, like making healthy foods more prominent in grocery stores, or changing organ donation from opt in to opt out. (Not sure those examples are entirely representative of the book, but they're the main ones I remember.) I was ambivalent. It was interesting what could be done to subconsciously influence people, but I bristle at the idea of being manipulated without my awareness, even if it's already prevalent, because usually it's done to benefit other-than-me.

bluGill 8y ago

I want personalization if done right. A co-worker went to try a new restaurant, and ordered his drink. The bar tender made his drink as ordered, and then realized that there was only one person in town who ordered that drink and what he wanted was slightly different from what was ordered. Because she knew what he wanted she remade the drink to be exactly what the customer wanted not what the waitress wrote down. (she delivered the drink personally just to verify that it really was the customer she thought it was and not a new guy who might have wanted it as ordered, which is how I heard the story)

haskellandchill 8y ago
That’s a lot of effort for a drink that is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, but sure you could probably raise a couple million while real problems go unanswered. I think that is my problem with all the efforts on personalization, we should be working on more meaningful problems with open data analysis on high impact social projects. It doesn’t pay well which is the most exquisite torture of capitalism.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Of course what everyone else practises is relatively unimportant but your little pet social project is meaningful. Sure, buddy. The fact that craftsmanship in this role can be rewarded is a fantastic thing. The people who can do things well can meet the people who want those things done well.
  - swirepe 8y ago
    >Sure, buddy. Don't do that.
  - haskellandbbq 8y ago
    I seek to minimize suffering. This can be in transportation, housing, healthcare, education, nutrition, or legal fields. These have a disproportionate impact on our lives and are neglected with low salaries. How does this make sense? I'm disappointed you view this as a pet project. I disagree that craft for the sake of craft is fantastic but I would not personally attack you for it, if you have the safety net you are welcome to pursue what interests you find rewarding. Many do not have the economy of doing so, they are who I work for.
    - samatman 8y ago
      Don't switch accounts like this.
      - haskellandchill 8y ago
        I was slowbanned and wanted to respond, not sure what to do in that case.
        taejo 8y ago
        "I was banned from the club and wanted to go in anyway [so I broke in through a window], not sure what to do in that case."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal nastiness breaks the site guidelines and will eventually get your account banned, so please edit it out of what you post here. If you'd (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it. The comment would be just fine with just the second paragraph.
cuspycode 8y ago
This is a good story that illustrates the problem very well. I don't want to be treated according to what my statistical cohort in a certain particular context suggests. But I have no problem with a personalized treatment from my bank personnel, from my cleaning staff, or from the undertaker. Or from the bartender who knows me. Personalization != probabilistic statistical match.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

What exactly are you arguing for? I'm arguing that lamenting "mechanization" of social interaction - whether between corporate employee and client as in this example, or even between individuals - is akin to appealing to ether as a virtue of the universe. If interactions between actors can be measured (which they can to some level of specificity in certain contexts), and the desires of the actors can be understood to such a degree (which we're starting to be able to do), then we can model actions which increase or reduce the likelihood of desired outcome, and following from that can produce and optimize decision support systems that nudge users toward some mutually beneficial state that may have otherwise been opaque to both actors. People seem to hate this idea because it basically puts hard determinism right in their face - in that your past behaviors if known well enough should be predictive of future actions ceterus paribus. It's often argued that, such a granularity of measurement in social dimensions is impossible technically, or the fact of being measured changes their behavior. I wouldn't argue either of those to be untrue, only that it need not be perfect to increase the overall optimization of the system. So instead of saying, yes lets use measurement to optimize our system of interactions across commerce and relations, people bristle at the mere concept of social engineering in the Popperian sense of the term because it feels restrictive to our sense of "free will." I argue the opposite, that doing such would simply make us more aware of our predilections and much more likely to be able to align them across groups.

hushlittleone 8y ago
That's interesting. I violently disagree but haven't worked out a constructive philosophical position yet. Thanks for the well-thought description.
- skygazer 8y ago
  There was a book called Nudge that takes up this topic to some extent, basically hacking people's decisions in "beneficial" ways, like making healthy foods more prominent in grocery stores, or changing organ donation from opt in to opt out. (Not sure those examples are entirely representative of the book, but they're the main ones I remember.) I was ambivalent. It was interesting what could be done to subconsciously influence people, but I bristle at the idea of being manipulated without my awareness, even if it's already prevalent, because usually it's done to benefit other-than-me.