3 ms·

I think you missed his point. He didn't claim that our innate appreciation for specific forms might imply that we make good decisions about how to find more.

I think you missed his point. He didn't claim that our innate appreciation for specific forms might imply that we make good decisions about how to find more. What he did say was that our degree of appreciation for proven designs, founded in evidence, seems to show that, as animals, we have buttons buried deep within us, that these designs manage to push. We all seem to like the same thing, once someone finds it or figures it out, even without knowing specifically why. Certain shapes and designs seem to transcend language, education, formal training and analytical judgement. There are rule sets that seem to appeal to us, instictively, and yet spaceships are not bound by those "rules of instinctive appeal" even though qualitatively, we can't state what those rules are or where they come from. The mystery, regarding where that post-hoc appeal comes from is what's interesting. Not that people aren't master draftsman, and materials scientists out of the womb.

btrettel 8y ago
I disagree. If efficient designs pushed some buttons in your head in a satisfying way, you'd find people absolutely fascinated by things like the Sears-Haack body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body Yet I'm not aware of anyone who is. In fact, the Sears-Haack body is basically a toothpick, which makes it ugly as far as I'm concerned. There's a simpler explanation for why airplane designs are often beautiful. Ugly designs typically don't sell as well. So designers look for something beautiful and at least reasonably efficient. In this view, there's no particular connection between the beauty of the design and its efficiency. I know that for car designs, we've known empirically for nearly 100 years how to make a very low drag body shape. And most car shapes on the market are far from optimal. While I've had arguments with people about why the most efficient shapes don't appear on the market (e.g., someone argued they'd have less cargo capacity, which I don't agree with), ultimately, few people want to drive a car that looks like a fish or something else that's strange. I imagine a similar phenomena occurs with planes. This design is very efficient, but the company folded after about 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series Personally, I don't find the design attractive. And I doubt your average HN reader feels as compelled by the design as they do about the latest Tesla, for example.
- hymen0ptera 8y ago
  This continues to invert the premise. The intersection of appealing things and functional things is more interesting that either taken in isolation.

btrettel 8y ago

I disagree. If efficient designs pushed some buttons in your head in a satisfying way, you'd find people absolutely fascinated by things like the Sears-Haack body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body Yet I'm not aware of anyone who is. In fact, the Sears-Haack body is basically a toothpick, which makes it ugly as far as I'm concerned. There's a simpler explanation for why airplane designs are often beautiful. Ugly designs typically don't sell as well. So designers look for something beautiful and at least reasonably efficient. In this view, there's no particular connection between the beauty of the design and its efficiency. I know that for car designs, we've known empirically for nearly 100 years how to make a very low drag body shape. And most car shapes on the market are far from optimal. While I've had arguments with people about why the most efficient shapes don't appear on the market (e.g., someone argued they'd have less cargo capacity, which I don't agree with), ultimately, few people want to drive a car that looks like a fish or something else that's strange. I imagine a similar phenomena occurs with planes. This design is very efficient, but the company folded after about 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series Personally, I don't find the design attractive. And I doubt your average HN reader feels as compelled by the design as they do about the latest Tesla, for example.

hymen0ptera 8y ago
This continues to invert the premise. The intersection of appealing things and functional things is more interesting that either taken in isolation.