4 ms·

I don't know if I can agree with the notion that software is bringing more flexibility. Software and other computer-based systems breed a type of 'systems thin

I don't know if I can agree with the notion that software is bringing more flexibility. Software and other computer-based systems breed a type of 'systems thinking' which is very efficient and rule-based. And reality is neither efficient or rule-based. If the software doesn't have a field to enter the correct data, how do people react? Do they conclude the software is wrong? No, they conclude the person is wrong and must be fit to the system provided. Software systems are often very general, and they achieve this by ignoring the complexities and specificities of individual situations. Software makes it almost impossibly tempting to reduce human situations to factors and linear approximations. While these may often work well enough, they also fail often enough to cause trouble. Hundreds of years ago, a work was written which I believe was quoted by Donald Knuth in one of his books that I've never forgotten: "Make game of that which makes as much of thee." That, to me, sound like the most cogent advice to anyone living in the modern world. If you are seen as a factor to be manipulated, maximized, or reduced, it is only fitting, appropriate, and ultimately, moral, for you to respond in kind.

icebraining 7y ago
Bureaucracy was doing that way before software came along, and I'm not sure the former was easier to subvert than the latter.
- mercer 7y ago
  It's much easier, through software and the internet, for bureaucracy, or in a broader sense 'systems thinking', to extend its reach to every little part of life that used to be exempt or less affected in the past because of various constraints. I do realize that the statement is a bit vague, and I'm not saying it's necessary development, but at least in my experience it seems to be true, in all sorts of ways. There's the ability to measure and optimize things in ways never possible before: tickets processed, karma, time to respond to a chat or email, etc. And if it's possible and easy, why not do so when you're the one in charge? Or ubiquitous communication channels, unbounded by time or place. It takes conscious effort/willpower to disconnect, and isn't always possible (at least not without negative consequences including social 'punishment'). There's a growing problem in the (mental) health care industry here, as I understand it, because doctors, psychologists, and social workers find themselves overwhelmed with 'paperwork' at the expense of doing their actual job, all because the various bureaucracies want measurements: insurance companies, the government, the CEO. And it's not just that it takes time, it actually changes the way these people have to work. I've spoken to a number of social workers and psychologists who lament the fact that they can't build up any kind of relationship with their patients (err, "clients") because the 'system' actively reduces them to rows in a database and if 'a' then 'b' approaches, where personal connection (and ability to, at times, use human judgment) is significantly reduced. I've heard the same is true with police work. Because of 'algorithmic' solutions (a whole other can of works) the 'beat cops' are told by computers, basically, where to patrol. As a self-fulfilling prophecy, their increased presence in certain areas increases the measured crime, which in turn affects the algorithm. This obviously doesn't just reduce the ability of cops to use their fuzzy human judgment to go where they think it makes sense, but it actually pollutes crime data which might, for example, mark certain areas (and ethnicities?) as more criminal. To end my ramble, I'm not saying all of this is bad. I'm still a bit of a techno-utopian at heart, and I think removing human judgment can also be beneficial (especially when it comes to power dynamics). But it worries me to the rather rapid increase in our abilities, and the way we just seem to jump head-first into this new world without some very careful investigation. And I definitely think a lot of this was a lot harder to do before software came along, and generally a lot harder to subvert.

icebraining 7y ago

Bureaucracy was doing that way before software came along, and I'm not sure the former was easier to subvert than the latter.

mercer 7y ago
It's much easier, through software and the internet, for bureaucracy, or in a broader sense 'systems thinking', to extend its reach to every little part of life that used to be exempt or less affected in the past because of various constraints. I do realize that the statement is a bit vague, and I'm not saying it's necessary development, but at least in my experience it seems to be true, in all sorts of ways. There's the ability to measure and optimize things in ways never possible before: tickets processed, karma, time to respond to a chat or email, etc. And if it's possible and easy, why not do so when you're the one in charge? Or ubiquitous communication channels, unbounded by time or place. It takes conscious effort/willpower to disconnect, and isn't always possible (at least not without negative consequences including social 'punishment'). There's a growing problem in the (mental) health care industry here, as I understand it, because doctors, psychologists, and social workers find themselves overwhelmed with 'paperwork' at the expense of doing their actual job, all because the various bureaucracies want measurements: insurance companies, the government, the CEO. And it's not just that it takes time, it actually changes the way these people have to work. I've spoken to a number of social workers and psychologists who lament the fact that they can't build up any kind of relationship with their patients (err, "clients") because the 'system' actively reduces them to rows in a database and if 'a' then 'b' approaches, where personal connection (and ability to, at times, use human judgment) is significantly reduced. I've heard the same is true with police work. Because of 'algorithmic' solutions (a whole other can of works) the 'beat cops' are told by computers, basically, where to patrol. As a self-fulfilling prophecy, their increased presence in certain areas increases the measured crime, which in turn affects the algorithm. This obviously doesn't just reduce the ability of cops to use their fuzzy human judgment to go where they think it makes sense, but it actually pollutes crime data which might, for example, mark certain areas (and ethnicities?) as more criminal. To end my ramble, I'm not saying all of this is bad. I'm still a bit of a techno-utopian at heart, and I think removing human judgment can also be beneficial (especially when it comes to power dynamics). But it worries me to the rather rapid increase in our abilities, and the way we just seem to jump head-first into this new world without some very careful investigation. And I definitely think a lot of this was a lot harder to do before software came along, and generally a lot harder to subvert.