3 ms·
> If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the probl
by firethief 7y ago
> If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem.
I don't see how this is compatible with the observed reality that individuals make choices that are not best for society (whether due to rational self-interest/incomplete information/behavioral factors).
- rdiddly 7y agoI suppose you could say there's room for that under redefining the problem, like "The real problem is that people refuse to employ known solutions to those problems."
- firethief 7y agoThat salvages the argument, but deflates it as an argument against talking about the known solutions: discussing them is part of the solution to such a meta-problem, directly, by leading people to employing them; and indirectly, by leading to insight on why people aren't employing them yet. The former is hazardous (and verylittlemeat spoke against it): people fight for their views on the internet, and it degrades discussion more than it reaches people. The latter has leverage and is potentially highly impactful (i.e. the kind of discussion I come here hoping to find).
- verylittlemeat 7y agoMany of the opinions downvoted on HN fit the same mold. They're what I call "if you're an alcoholic just stop drinking" arguments. They're totally reductive and really just serve to stroke the speakers ego or shame others rather than actually address the issue.
- rdiddly 7y agoI agree; it's sort of an escape hatch. There's no problem I can't solve if you always give me "Redefine the problem" as one of the options!