8 ms·

its very true. I worked in a research lab in health and it was unbearable being around those people. 'we can't do that, people will use it wrongly' 'we cant te

its very true. I worked in a research lab in health and it was unbearable being around those people. 'we can't do that, people will use it wrongly' 'we cant tell the people that, they might use the information wrongly.' on and on again. Just one of many examples was a trauma center application that showed all the trauma centers in the US on a map. you could see the coverages for ambulance and helicopter. I put in a feature where one could see the distance to the closest trauma center, as well as get directions. I was asked to remove it because people might use the information incorrectly. to me, the problem is much more broad than this article suggests. its not just one phenomenon. lying and hiding information is built into their way of thinking.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wahern 5y ago
If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information, including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted. The greater the details, the greater the burden. People naturally make assumptions about credibility according to the depth and breadth of the information provided. If you're not prepared to make the commitment, then it's quite prudent not to publish so many details. If you don't publish it, then people can't mistake it for up-to-date, accurate, and/or comprehensive information, and they'll be more likely seek it out somewhere else or otherwise hedge their reliance. If you do publish and it's inaccurate, then you're misleading people and possibly redirecting them away from other, more reliable sources. It's difficult to say without more details what the fundamental concerns in your case were. But note that the real, nuanced reasons for certain decisions aren't or can't always be adequately explained to employees. A lawyer or emergency services expert might give the sophisticated analysis, but by the time the directive makes it down to people implementing it the rationale is "because people are dumb". But in truth it's really more that people are trusting.
- moolcool 5y ago
  > including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted SO much of the current covid conspiracy stuff relies on redacted studies. The thing is, the conspiracy theorists either think that they've been redacted because of "the man", or don't know how redaction works full stop.
  - mwfunk 5y ago
    I think another big part of it is, the conspiracy theorists only need one paper that agrees with them to instantly say the gazillions of papers that disagree with them are wrong. So even one redacted paper is more important to them than all other scholarship.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      And, given yesterdays thread, the opposite.
  - evancox100 5y ago
    Ya, studies with classified information blacked out are the worst
    - anders_p 5y ago
      Hah. Yes. The redaction/retraction confusion here is rather funny. "Redacted" scientific research on covid, would make a conspiracy theorist out of me too :)
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The idea that people should look at a map of hospitals in an emergency is pretty much what the article is about. It's a worry that people will do something stupid if information is available. If you don't know dead cold where the trauma center is, you should be calling 911 (or equivalent), not trying to decide where to drive. If you are in the middle of nowhere, you don't need to drive to the closest trauma center to improve the situation, drive to the nearest larger town/city. There will be a way of landing a helicopter there. And so on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 5y ago
This article talks about their fear that masks would cause reckless behavior being a main reason they told everyone they were useless, but another one I've heard in interviews is they thought medical staff needed them more and the public could not be trusted not to hog them if they told the truth. Pretty clear that waffling was a total disaster with serious harmful effects.
stephen_g 5y ago
Yes, and I think the whole concept is seriously dangerous. I hate it generally, because I hold truth is such an important ideal personally, but at a time where trust in democracy is dropping around much of the 'Western world', intentionally hiding information because you worry people will misuse it just throws fuel on the fire because it gives conspiracy nuts a 'grain of truth' to build their falsehoods on. I think it's just so bad - when you have people making up crazy stuff about Government control (like the crazy stuff around vaccines being population control, injecting tracking microchips, the QAnon cult, etc. that are all getting massive), actually having real examples of the Government lying is basically the worst thing that you can have!
teekert 5y ago
Arg, so true. People that assume everybody is more stupid then them are the worst. I have friends (that sometimes are on the verge of not being friends) that always remind me what a huge responsibility a puppy is when you show them pictures of new family member, or that your mortgage is so high you can't travel anymore and you have to have priorities in life, "you have to be able to enjoy it too". Assuming I'm to stupid to think for myself is the most insulting thing you can do to me. Sadly I still can't respond to this behavior properly, I get so worked up, it messes up my day. It even causes me to complain about it on HN.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  I sometimes get the feeling it's an issue of projection, as in people think others have the same values / priorities as them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wahern 5y ago

If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information, including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted. The greater the details, the greater the burden. People naturally make assumptions about credibility according to the depth and breadth of the information provided. If you're not prepared to make the commitment, then it's quite prudent not to publish so many details. If you don't publish it, then people can't mistake it for up-to-date, accurate, and/or comprehensive information, and they'll be more likely seek it out somewhere else or otherwise hedge their reliance. If you do publish and it's inaccurate, then you're misleading people and possibly redirecting them away from other, more reliable sources. It's difficult to say without more details what the fundamental concerns in your case were. But note that the real, nuanced reasons for certain decisions aren't or can't always be adequately explained to employees. A lawyer or emergency services expert might give the sophisticated analysis, but by the time the directive makes it down to people implementing it the rationale is "because people are dumb". But in truth it's really more that people are trusting.

moolcool 5y ago
> including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted SO much of the current covid conspiracy stuff relies on redacted studies. The thing is, the conspiracy theorists either think that they've been redacted because of "the man", or don't know how redaction works full stop.
- mwfunk 5y ago
  I think another big part of it is, the conspiracy theorists only need one paper that agrees with them to instantly say the gazillions of papers that disagree with them are wrong. So even one redacted paper is more important to them than all other scholarship.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    And, given yesterdays thread, the opposite.
- evancox100 5y ago
  Ya, studies with classified information blacked out are the worst
  - anders_p 5y ago
    Hah. Yes. The redaction/retraction confusion here is rather funny. "Redacted" scientific research on covid, would make a conspiracy theorist out of me too :)
maxerickson 5y ago
The idea that people should look at a map of hospitals in an emergency is pretty much what the article is about. It's a worry that people will do something stupid if information is available. If you don't know dead cold where the trauma center is, you should be calling 911 (or equivalent), not trying to decide where to drive. If you are in the middle of nowhere, you don't need to drive to the closest trauma center to improve the situation, drive to the nearest larger town/city. There will be a way of landing a helicopter there. And so on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

emodendroket 5y ago

This article talks about their fear that masks would cause reckless behavior being a main reason they told everyone they were useless, but another one I've heard in interviews is they thought medical staff needed them more and the public could not be trusted not to hog them if they told the truth. Pretty clear that waffling was a total disaster with serious harmful effects.

stephen_g 5y ago

Yes, and I think the whole concept is seriously dangerous. I hate it generally, because I hold truth is such an important ideal personally, but at a time where trust in democracy is dropping around much of the 'Western world', intentionally hiding information because you worry people will misuse it just throws fuel on the fire because it gives conspiracy nuts a 'grain of truth' to build their falsehoods on. I think it's just so bad - when you have people making up crazy stuff about Government control (like the crazy stuff around vaccines being population control, injecting tracking microchips, the QAnon cult, etc. that are all getting massive), actually having real examples of the Government lying is basically the worst thing that you can have!

teekert 5y ago

Arg, so true. People that assume everybody is more stupid then them are the worst. I have friends (that sometimes are on the verge of not being friends) that always remind me what a huge responsibility a puppy is when you show them pictures of new family member, or that your mortgage is so high you can't travel anymore and you have to have priorities in life, "you have to be able to enjoy it too". Assuming I'm to stupid to think for myself is the most insulting thing you can do to me. Sadly I still can't respond to this behavior properly, I get so worked up, it messes up my day. It even causes me to complain about it on HN.

vladvasiliu 5y ago
I sometimes get the feeling it's an issue of projection, as in people think others have the same values / priorities as them.