3 ms·

Ask HN: Why is the UX of the human brain so user-hostile?

3 points by desertraven 5y ago

why do we act in ways which harm ourselves? Why is it so hard to change ones ways?

eimrine 5y ago
Would you define some of your words? I have never seen such combination of words as "UX of human brain". > Why is it so hard to change ones ways? So hard like what? If it is rational to change then you change, otherwise you don't. Have I just missed something?
- desertraven 5y ago
  True, I should have used the comment space more liberally. By UX of the human brain, I mean the experience of being a human. Your example of rationality is a great one, let's assume an ideal human being is one who optimises for rationality. Why isn't rationality innate in being human? I'm sure to a degree it is, but I think you'd agree that the world could be a little more rational, and perhaps even you yourself could be (I certainly could be). To speak further to my experience, there's things I rationally know I should or shouldn't do. But I don't act accordingly always (or often - depending on my mindset). I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds the endeavour of making rational changes difficult? And rationality is just one aspect of 'human-brain UX'.
  - t-3 5y ago
    "Rationality" simply means "properly thought out in advance", that's all. There's no secret rational thought exercise or smartdrug that can turn you into a superhuman with no foibles. Personally, I've found it gets easier as I get older and the hormones wear off.
  - eimrine 5y ago
    I would began from the another end of problem. We, the humankind, do exist and that's mean we have something very rational innate. Then we used to develop the concept of rationality per se, but seems we haven't develop the proper understanding of the human nature. So, I propose you to consider to look at your "isn't rational" as a rational on some higher level which is definitely beyond of our understanding of the human nature and the rest of world's nature. A little example from my experience: I know that programming on Lisp is kind of one of the most rational things I (as the citizen of world, not as a greedy egoist) can do, especially if the result will be a FOSS software. But also I need to spend time to: sleeping, eating, cleaning my body and house, earning money, having rest after workday, having travels for having bigger chunks of rest, having rest after that travelling, having some another duties... Am I not rational? Potential users of my (unreleased) FOSS application might think that I can be a lot more rational than I use to be, but some other people can say I am enough rational, especial if I have an ability to think about all of that. Maybe your problem is very different from mine, but please do not forget that you do have a lot of rationality which seems to be so rational that you even can not think about it (because it is also rational!) Hope my example helps you to look at your problem from another angle.
jstx1 5y ago
Because up to this point on the evolutionary scale the brain UX hasn't been a sufficient enough deterrent to reproduction. You're not owed a good experience, or a healthy brain, or a nice life. There isn't a manager to complain to. I'm sorry.
- desertraven 5y ago
  Very true. Do you think there is a role for humanity to self-improve the UX? Whether with sufficient technology or collective will? I've heard the idea of culture as an operating system of sorts (a spin on being a product of your environment I suppose). Could the UX be improved with the right culture? On a bit of a tangent here - is there a brain architecture where a consistently good (and lucid/clear) experience is guaranteed? Is such an experience within to reach of humankind?
  - agent008t 5y ago
    There is, but it presents its own problems. For example - junk food, infinite scroll, instagram, many forms of advertising seem to hijack (for a lot of people, but not all) some of the mechanisms that we have evolved (and that are useful 'in the wild') in a way that does not benefit, and often actively harms, the person. A culture that actively detects and rejects such things can be somewhat effective, as it can make employing such mechanisms unprofitable. It is still unlikely to protect the most vulnerable. One could legislate and make such practices illegal. But that raises the problems of 'who decides' and 'where do you draw the line', and of necessity restricts human freedoms (and also creates illegal markets with organized crime). See, for example, narcotics or prostitution (which both are good examples of the hijacking I described). Should we go back to something like the Hayes code for movies? The fundamental question is whether it is ok to do good to someone against their will.
    - desertraven 5y ago
      Thank you for elaborating! Regarding your last question, I never had the clarity of mind to arrive at such a simple question that encapsulates universal wellbeing and freedom. Do you think it's okay to do good to someone against their will? Assuming the mechanism was there to objectively validate what is good, I'd say yes. People come into existence, and much of their experience is against their will. So what's a little more helplessness, especially in the pursuit of their own wellbeing.
gregjor 5y ago
Using terms from technical/software fields to talk about brains and behavior leads to inapt analogies. People are not computers. Brains evolved from the material available, to serve some basic purposes: improve chances of survival and reproduction. Brains were not designed and don’t have “UX.” What each of us experience is an emergent property, or side-effect, of the brain’s evolution. The concept of rationality is a human invention (like morality). Neither are inherent properties of the brain, they are learned behaviors and social constructs.

3 points by desertraven 5y ago

why do we act in ways which harm ourselves? Why is it so hard to change ones ways?

Would you define some of your words? I have never seen such combination of words as "UX of human brain". > Why is it so hard to change ones ways? So hard like what? If it is rational to change then you change, otherwise you don't. Have I just missed something?

desertraven 5y ago
True, I should have used the comment space more liberally. By UX of the human brain, I mean the experience of being a human. Your example of rationality is a great one, let's assume an ideal human being is one who optimises for rationality. Why isn't rationality innate in being human? I'm sure to a degree it is, but I think you'd agree that the world could be a little more rational, and perhaps even you yourself could be (I certainly could be). To speak further to my experience, there's things I rationally know I should or shouldn't do. But I don't act accordingly always (or often - depending on my mindset). I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds the endeavour of making rational changes difficult? And rationality is just one aspect of 'human-brain UX'.
- t-3 5y ago
  "Rationality" simply means "properly thought out in advance", that's all. There's no secret rational thought exercise or smartdrug that can turn you into a superhuman with no foibles. Personally, I've found it gets easier as I get older and the hormones wear off.
- eimrine 5y ago
  I would began from the another end of problem. We, the humankind, do exist and that's mean we have something very rational innate. Then we used to develop the concept of rationality per se, but seems we haven't develop the proper understanding of the human nature. So, I propose you to consider to look at your "isn't rational" as a rational on some higher level which is definitely beyond of our understanding of the human nature and the rest of world's nature. A little example from my experience: I know that programming on Lisp is kind of one of the most rational things I (as the citizen of world, not as a greedy egoist) can do, especially if the result will be a FOSS software. But also I need to spend time to: sleeping, eating, cleaning my body and house, earning money, having rest after workday, having travels for having bigger chunks of rest, having rest after that travelling, having some another duties... Am I not rational? Potential users of my (unreleased) FOSS application might think that I can be a lot more rational than I use to be, but some other people can say I am enough rational, especial if I have an ability to think about all of that. Maybe your problem is very different from mine, but please do not forget that you do have a lot of rationality which seems to be so rational that you even can not think about it (because it is also rational!) Hope my example helps you to look at your problem from another angle.

jstx1 5y ago

Because up to this point on the evolutionary scale the brain UX hasn't been a sufficient enough deterrent to reproduction. You're not owed a good experience, or a healthy brain, or a nice life. There isn't a manager to complain to. I'm sorry.

desertraven 5y ago
Very true. Do you think there is a role for humanity to self-improve the UX? Whether with sufficient technology or collective will? I've heard the idea of culture as an operating system of sorts (a spin on being a product of your environment I suppose). Could the UX be improved with the right culture? On a bit of a tangent here - is there a brain architecture where a consistently good (and lucid/clear) experience is guaranteed? Is such an experience within to reach of humankind?
- agent008t 5y ago
  There is, but it presents its own problems. For example - junk food, infinite scroll, instagram, many forms of advertising seem to hijack (for a lot of people, but not all) some of the mechanisms that we have evolved (and that are useful 'in the wild') in a way that does not benefit, and often actively harms, the person. A culture that actively detects and rejects such things can be somewhat effective, as it can make employing such mechanisms unprofitable. It is still unlikely to protect the most vulnerable. One could legislate and make such practices illegal. But that raises the problems of 'who decides' and 'where do you draw the line', and of necessity restricts human freedoms (and also creates illegal markets with organized crime). See, for example, narcotics or prostitution (which both are good examples of the hijacking I described). Should we go back to something like the Hayes code for movies? The fundamental question is whether it is ok to do good to someone against their will.
  - desertraven 5y ago
    Thank you for elaborating! Regarding your last question, I never had the clarity of mind to arrive at such a simple question that encapsulates universal wellbeing and freedom. Do you think it's okay to do good to someone against their will? Assuming the mechanism was there to objectively validate what is good, I'd say yes. People come into existence, and much of their experience is against their will. So what's a little more helplessness, especially in the pursuit of their own wellbeing.

gregjor 5y ago

Using terms from technical/software fields to talk about brains and behavior leads to inapt analogies. People are not computers. Brains evolved from the material available, to serve some basic purposes: improve chances of survival and reproduction. Brains were not designed and don’t have “UX.” What each of us experience is an emergent property, or side-effect, of the brain’s evolution. The concept of rationality is a human invention (like morality). Neither are inherent properties of the brain, they are learned behaviors and social constructs.