4 ms·

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

by sildur 6y ago

kleer001 6y ago
I love that aphorism. Unintended consequences. We should teach unintended consequences in grade school, high school, and have advanced degrees in it. How to see them before they explode, how to mediate them, and how to fix them once they're running at full steam. Lately I've been imagining it along with the slowly boiling frog story and the crab-mentality too. As in some people can't tell we're headed to hell because it's coming so slowly, and some people will actively stop others from escaping hell or trying to fix the situation.
- godelski 6y ago
  There's a hypothesis I came up with awhile ago and it seems to hold pretty true. If we talk about problems as O(n) where n is the causation distance[0] we've solved the vast majority of O(1) and O(0) problems. It makes sense that biologically we would be primed to think in this way because they are decent approximate solutions for small groups. But the world we live in now is much more complex and many events are coupled and the low order approximations aren't good solutions. The problem I see is that people are treating O(5) problems like they are O(1). As a society we discuss things in this way instead of trying to understand the complexity, nuance, and coupling that exists in many of our modern problems. A good example of this is global warming. People treat it as "if we switch to renewables then we've solved global warming" when reality is substantially more complicated. But I don't know how to get people to realize problems are higher order problems and that the first order approximation isn't a reasonable solution. [0] So O(0) means x causes itself. O(1) is y causes x. O(n) is n causes y causes ... causes x. This is just a simplified framework and not meant to be taken too seriously.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I agree, I've been thinking along these lines for a while too; thank you for phrasing it so clearly. My current thinking led me to conclude that we don't have sufficiently good tools[0] for modelling O(n) problems with n > 2. Particularly when (what your simplification doesn't capture) there are feedback loops involved. Take this O(2) problem: x causes more y, y causes more z, z causes less y but much more x. Or in a pictorial form: (++) X<-------\ | (-) | | ------Z \ / ^ (+) v | (+) Y-------/ You can't just think your way through that problem, you have to model it - estimate coefficients (even if qualitatively), account for assumptions, and simulate the dynamic behavior. I argue that we lack both mental and technological tools to cope with this. Speaking of global warming, a year ago I presented this problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20480438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20480438 - "Will increase in coal exports of Poland increase Poland's CO₂ footprint?" Yes? No? How badly? The question is at least this complicated: Coal exports ^ | [provides Z coal to] | | [needs α*X = A kWh for coal] Mining coal <---------------------\ | | | [provides X coal to] | v | Coal power plants | | | | | | [γ*X = Y kWh burning coal] | | v | | Electricity --------------------/ | | [burned coal into β*X = N kg of CO₂] v CO₂ emissions (Presented this way it not only tells you that, ceteris paribus, it will, but roughly by how much and what are the parameters that can be tweaked to mitigate it.) Why aren't we talking about climate change in these terms with general public? Why aren't feedback loops taught in school? -- [0] - Or, if they exist, they aren't sufficiently well known outside some think tanks or some random academic papers.
    - godelski 6y ago
      Your ascii art is much better than mine and I'm not going to attempt it, but I agree with everything that you've said except for > I argue that we lack both mental and technological tools to cope with this. I do think we have the tools to solve these issues. I do not think the mental tools are in the hands of the average person (likely not even in most of your above average people because the barrier to entry is exceedingly high and trying to model any problem like this is mentally exhausting and it thus never becomes second nature). Many of the subjects broached here aren't brought up until graduate studies in STEM fields, and even then not always. An O(aleph_n) problem is intractable but clearly O(10) isn't. We should be arguing about what order approximation is "good enough" but ignoring all the problems that arises is missing a lot of fundamental problem solving. Good for a first go, but you don't stop there. I think this comes down to people not understanding the iterative process. 0) Create an idea. 1) Check for validity. 2) Attack and tear it down. 3) If something remains, rebuild and goto 2 else goto 0. I find people stop at 1 on their own ideas but jump to 2 (and don't allow for 3) for others ideas. > Why aren't feedback loops taught in school? I think 3 other things should be discussed as well. Dynamic problems (people often reduce things to static and try to turn positive sum games into zero sum. We could say the TeMPOraL component), probabilistic problems, and most importantly: an optimal solution does not equate to everyone being happy (or really anyone). Or to quote Picard: > It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life. The last part I think is extremely important but hard to teach. (I should also mention that I do enjoy most of the comments you provide to HN)
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > Your ascii art is much better A skill honed in deep procrastination :). > I think 3 other things should be discussed as well. Strongly agreed with all three. > Dynamic problems (people often reduce things to static and try to turn positive sum games into zero sum. That's what I implicitly meant by talking (again and again) about feedback loops; problems with such loops are a subset of dynamic problems, and one very frequently seen in the world. But you've rightfully pointed out the superset. I think most people, like you say, try to turn everything into a static problem as soon as possible, so they can have a conclusive and time-invariant opinion on it. But it's not the proper way to think about the world[0]! (I only disagree with the "try to turn positive sum games into zero sum"; zero-sum games also require perceiving the feedback loops involved. And then there are negative-sum games.) > probabilistic problems Yup. Basic probability is taught to schoolchildren, but as a toy (or just another math oddity) rather than a tool for perceiving the world. (Thank you for the kind words :).) -- [0] - Unless your problem has a fixed point that you can point out.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

by sildur 6y ago

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I love that aphorism. Unintended consequences. We should teach unintended consequences in grade school, high school, and have advanced degrees in it. How to see them before they explode, how to mediate them, and how to fix them once they're running at full steam. Lately I've been imagining it along with the slowly boiling frog story and the crab-mentality too. As in some people can't tell we're headed to hell because it's coming so slowly, and some people will actively stop others from escaping hell or trying to fix the situation.

godelski 6y ago
There's a hypothesis I came up with awhile ago and it seems to hold pretty true. If we talk about problems as O(n) where n is the causation distance[0] we've solved the vast majority of O(1) and O(0) problems. It makes sense that biologically we would be primed to think in this way because they are decent approximate solutions for small groups. But the world we live in now is much more complex and many events are coupled and the low order approximations aren't good solutions. The problem I see is that people are treating O(5) problems like they are O(1). As a society we discuss things in this way instead of trying to understand the complexity, nuance, and coupling that exists in many of our modern problems. A good example of this is global warming. People treat it as "if we switch to renewables then we've solved global warming" when reality is substantially more complicated. But I don't know how to get people to realize problems are higher order problems and that the first order approximation isn't a reasonable solution. [0] So O(0) means x causes itself. O(1) is y causes x. O(n) is n causes y causes ... causes x. This is just a simplified framework and not meant to be taken too seriously.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I agree, I've been thinking along these lines for a while too; thank you for phrasing it so clearly. My current thinking led me to conclude that we don't have sufficiently good tools[0] for modelling O(n) problems with n > 2. Particularly when (what your simplification doesn't capture) there are feedback loops involved. Take this O(2) problem: x causes more y, y causes more z, z causes less y but much more x. Or in a pictorial form: (++) X<-------\ | (-) | | ------Z \ / ^ (+) v | (+) Y-------/ You can't just think your way through that problem, you have to model it - estimate coefficients (even if qualitatively), account for assumptions, and simulate the dynamic behavior. I argue that we lack both mental and technological tools to cope with this. Speaking of global warming, a year ago I presented this problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20480438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20480438 - "Will increase in coal exports of Poland increase Poland's CO₂ footprint?" Yes? No? How badly? The question is at least this complicated: Coal exports ^ | [provides Z coal to] | | [needs α*X = A kWh for coal] Mining coal <---------------------\ | | | [provides X coal to] | v | Coal power plants | | | | | | [γ*X = Y kWh burning coal] | | v | | Electricity --------------------/ | | [burned coal into β*X = N kg of CO₂] v CO₂ emissions (Presented this way it not only tells you that, ceteris paribus, it will, but roughly by how much and what are the parameters that can be tweaked to mitigate it.) Why aren't we talking about climate change in these terms with general public? Why aren't feedback loops taught in school? -- [0] - Or, if they exist, they aren't sufficiently well known outside some think tanks or some random academic papers.
  - godelski 6y ago
    Your ascii art is much better than mine and I'm not going to attempt it, but I agree with everything that you've said except for > I argue that we lack both mental and technological tools to cope with this. I do think we have the tools to solve these issues. I do not think the mental tools are in the hands of the average person (likely not even in most of your above average people because the barrier to entry is exceedingly high and trying to model any problem like this is mentally exhausting and it thus never becomes second nature). Many of the subjects broached here aren't brought up until graduate studies in STEM fields, and even then not always. An O(aleph_n) problem is intractable but clearly O(10) isn't. We should be arguing about what order approximation is "good enough" but ignoring all the problems that arises is missing a lot of fundamental problem solving. Good for a first go, but you don't stop there. I think this comes down to people not understanding the iterative process. 0) Create an idea. 1) Check for validity. 2) Attack and tear it down. 3) If something remains, rebuild and goto 2 else goto 0. I find people stop at 1 on their own ideas but jump to 2 (and don't allow for 3) for others ideas. > Why aren't feedback loops taught in school? I think 3 other things should be discussed as well. Dynamic problems (people often reduce things to static and try to turn positive sum games into zero sum. We could say the TeMPOraL component), probabilistic problems, and most importantly: an optimal solution does not equate to everyone being happy (or really anyone). Or to quote Picard: > It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life. The last part I think is extremely important but hard to teach. (I should also mention that I do enjoy most of the comments you provide to HN)
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      > Your ascii art is much better A skill honed in deep procrastination :). > I think 3 other things should be discussed as well. Strongly agreed with all three. > Dynamic problems (people often reduce things to static and try to turn positive sum games into zero sum. That's what I implicitly meant by talking (again and again) about feedback loops; problems with such loops are a subset of dynamic problems, and one very frequently seen in the world. But you've rightfully pointed out the superset. I think most people, like you say, try to turn everything into a static problem as soon as possible, so they can have a conclusive and time-invariant opinion on it. But it's not the proper way to think about the world[0]! (I only disagree with the "try to turn positive sum games into zero sum"; zero-sum games also require perceiving the feedback loops involved. And then there are negative-sum games.) > probabilistic problems Yup. Basic probability is taught to schoolchildren, but as a toy (or just another math oddity) rather than a tool for perceiving the world. (Thank you for the kind words :).) -- [0] - Unless your problem has a fixed point that you can point out.