4 ms·

Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity. For consumers, it's obvious that tech needs to be socially acce

Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity. For consumers, it's obvious that tech needs to be socially acceptable - in fact it's an expected part of the adoption cycle. For fun (ok, I'm revealing myself), and to exercise my creativity and outside-the-box thinking, sometimes I try to come up with norm-violating, harmless, and clearly more productive technology people could adopt. (I don't mean provactive norm-violating, like something dangerous or overtly sexual, just geeky or otherwise.) Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a headlamp, a camelback, etc. But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line? And what about the space program: how much extra risk is taken for dignity under current social norms?

cf100clunk 3y ago
Industrial designers can create amazing prototypes, but when a product is shipped it becomes subject to some very cruel market forces. The Nokia N-gage had huge potential, but was quickly lambasted as the ''taco phone'' due to layout decisions that broke common mobile phone paradigms. > had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is the perfect example. Love it or hate it, the aesthetics of that aircraft are far from ''normal''.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  The taco phone also had the rediculous design flaw of forcing you to turn off the phone and remove the battery to replace a game cartridge. The name is also stupid.
bell-cot 3y ago
For an airplane designed for farmers, I'll guess that "ugly but functional" is fine. Beauty wasn't a serious consideration for their other agricultural equipment, or barns, or silos, or ...
- Someone 3y ago
  …the Citroen 2CV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV#Pre-production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV#Pre-production: “In 1934, family-owned Michelin, as the largest creditor, took over the bankrupt Citroën company. The new management commissioned a market survey, conducted by Jacques Duclos. France at that time had a large rural population which could not yet afford cars; Citroën used the survey results to prepare a design brief for a low-priced, rugged "umbrella on four wheels" that would enable four people to transport 50 kg (110 lb) of farm goods to market at 50 km/h (30 mph), if necessary across muddy, unpaved roads. In fuel economy, the car would use no more than 3 L/100 km (95 mpg‑imp; 80 mpg‑US). One design parameter required that customers be able to transport eggs across a freshly ploughed field without breakage.”
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    I like the look of it. But I also like the look of the AirTruk, so ...
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  She thinks my tractor's sexy
N19PEDL2 3y ago
In my opinion, aesthetics is an important factor when a product has to appeal to the general public: people want to use products that look good and can be shown to other people without embarrassment. On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. In this case, those who choose and select products are usually accountable for their choices, and aesthetics is not an objective criterion that can be used to justify the choice.
- Gare 3y ago
  Well, SpaceX kinda runs contrary to that. And who's to say they're wrong? Sexy rockets bring interest and make engineers proud.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    They also lead to decisions made not on merit but on hype, and on cults of personality.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Usually with a weird design, the problem is that weird often means uncommon, limited-supplier parts, which are more of a cost driver than just looking weird. It is cheap and easy to go down the well-trodden path.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. I think that's the ideal, but greatly underestimates the human factor in practice. People are biased by aesthetics. And also nobody wants to be a laughing-stock, presenting the comical option to the team, management, board, etc. For government, nobody wants to have themselves all over the media and social media next to the absurdly comical thing they are presenting.
CWuestefeld 3y ago
This seems parallel to the discussion of how NBA players shoot foul shots. From what I've read, experiments show that basket percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot", compared to the conventional way of shooting. Why, then, don't we see players shooting this way? You'd think that the coaches would tell players to do this to help the team, and that they'd want to, to boost their own stats. But it seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it conflicts with other priorities about building their individual "brands". edit: learn to spell "basket"
- BerislavLopac 3y ago
  This reminds me of the introduction of the V-style [0] in ski jumping: it was originally deemed inappropriate by the judges, who scored it lower, but it provided so much more distance that today it's the most widely used technique. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_jumping_techniques#V-style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_jumping_techniques#V-style
  - Doxin 3y ago
    It's still wild to me that ski-jumping is a jury sport. Seems to me that it'd be simplest to just... measure distance? But I guess distance is one of the least important things to the score.
- kleton 3y ago
  Possibly the additional time investment required to master two different throws vs learning a specialized throw for foul shots.
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  > experiments show that basked percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot" There is also the Dutch sport "korfbal" (which literally translates to basketball, funny enough) where the baskets are higher, smaller and have no board, and you are not allowed to shoot if blocked anyway. Everyone shoots with two hands, and the equivalent of the lay-up is even sort-of done underhandedly. Speaking of social norms and not wanting to look "uncool", korfbal is often talked about as a very dorky sport, even though it is fairly popular in the Netherlands. Most commonly by men who insist real men play football (soccer for the Americans). Speaking as a man who really enjoyed korfbal growing up, I suspect this is mainly because it's a unisex team-sport. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis
breischl 3y ago
> clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) They tried something similar for ships and a few planes. I think it wasn't very effective as camouflage though, and was more intended to confuse the distance & direction of travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage > had a laughably ugly form The B-52 was called the "Big Ugly Fat F". The A-10 was called the "Warthog". Both considered ugly but effective. That said, there probably is some effect, it's just hard to measure.
- V-eHGsd_ 3y ago
  the x-32, the plane that was competing with the f-35 (neé x-35) in the joint strike fighter program looked _weird_; it looks like a pelican opening its mouth. I remember watching a documentary about the JSF where someone said that its looks definitely played a role in it not getting picked.
winnit 3y ago
I once visited an army surplus store which stocked a kind of string vest which looked like a fish-net but with thicker cords. The proprietor claimed it was developed by the Swedish military for its effectiveness in hot weather but didn’t become popular because of pushback from soldiers who didn’t want to wear it because it looked kind of gimpy.
zizee 3y ago
People have suggested that the X32 was not chosen by the air force (instead of the chosen F22) because of ugliness. Note: I don't know if this is true or not, and I don't know the performance capabilities of each aircraft. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighters-almost-replaced-f-22-and-f-35-100682 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighte...
- throwup238 3y ago
  The X32 lost to the X35 (which became F35), not the F22 Raptor. The X32 performed worse in range/payload capacity, Boeing had lots of difficulties developing STOVL on the platform, the delta wing design was less efficient, and Lockheed was still riding high on its success with the F22 program (which no one has really bothered competing with decades later) so it's unlikely that aesthetics were the deciding factor.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  Slight nitpick: The X32 competed with the now-F35. The YF23 lost to the F22. I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service. EDIT: beaten to the comment by 3 minutes. Oh my poor pedantic soul.
  - iamthirsty 3y ago
    > I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service. It is, but so is the F-22 and because it was a one or the other choice, I personally like the direction they went.
Consultant32452 3y ago
We bought $30 Million worth of camouflage for military contractors in Afghanistan because some Afghan defense minister thought the pattern looked cool, despite providing no camouflage capabilities in that environment. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-wasted-30-million-on-buying-the-wrong-pattern-of-afghan-army-uniforms https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-...
morkalork 3y ago
The initial prototypes for the F117 were famously not well recieved for how ugly and un-aerodynamic looking they were.
grotorea 3y ago
I can't remember the specific sources but at least for the military the things that violate social normals and aren't done do happen, although it's usually something more political than aesthetics. But then that runs the risk of having that military force outcompeted and defeated.
TacticalCoder 3y ago
> Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity. I don't know about that but aesthetics isn't just something humans pay attention to. Many females in the animal kingdom prefer to mate with the males we, humans, also find the most beautiful. For example birds of paradise: females picks the males we humans find to be the most harmonious. Why do most find the plane in TFA fucking ugly? I don't know but I do certainly also find it ugly. But what I do know is I don't want to be imposed ugly in my life and I don't want to impose ugly on others. I'm siding with the birds of paradise on that one...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rwky 3y ago
>Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a headlamp, a camelback, etc. I've done the camelback a few times, seems perfectly normal to me ;)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  All day, every day?
  - rwky 3y ago
    Only during summer.
lmm 3y ago
> But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line? Military transport planes have rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer. The only reason airlines don't do the same is that passengers wouldn't be happy.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't the same thing as a military transport plane. For example, things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. It's also important, IMO, to note that "passengers wouldn't be happy" is a slight underestimate. The number of people barfing from motion sickness would go up pretty dramatically, for one. Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. And then of course there's the problem of frequency. Passenger plane crashes are rare enough now that squeezing out the last little bit of safety by causing serious discomfort and other headaches is probably not a good trade-off.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. That assumes rapid deceleration. I can certainly imagine that happening in many undesireable situations, major and minor, but how often is there rapid acceleration, minor (e.g., turbulance) or major (e.g. in an uncontrolled dive - if that ever really happens, and if survival is possible regardless)? > things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. > Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. I'd like a seat in the rear, please.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > That assumes rapid deceleration. Sure, but my understanding is that the only time a rear facing seat has an advantage is when decelerating rapidly. The seat back can support your body better than a lap belt.
winphone1974 3y ago
The warthog is a pretty ugly plane IMO, yet well loved and highly productive, so function seems to have won.
- LightBug1 3y ago
  Nah, not ugly, beastly ... it's a great look.
killjoywashere 3y ago
The modern military has little cash to spare on looking good. Where it's critically important, the impact is measured: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215881/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215881/
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The modern US military has $800+ billion to spend.
  - killjoywashere 3y ago
    The US Government is a well-armed insurance company. Most of the money goes to healthcare and retirement benefits. As a fraction of national GDP, the US isn't in the top 10.

cf100clunk 3y ago

Industrial designers can create amazing prototypes, but when a product is shipped it becomes subject to some very cruel market forces. The Nokia N-gage had huge potential, but was quickly lambasted as the ''taco phone'' due to layout decisions that broke common mobile phone paradigms. > had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is the perfect example. Love it or hate it, the aesthetics of that aircraft are far from ''normal''.

faeriechangling 3y ago
The taco phone also had the rediculous design flaw of forcing you to turn off the phone and remove the battery to replace a game cartridge. The name is also stupid.

bell-cot 3y ago

For an airplane designed for farmers, I'll guess that "ugly but functional" is fine. Beauty wasn't a serious consideration for their other agricultural equipment, or barns, or silos, or ...

Someone 3y ago
…the Citroen 2CV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV#Pre-production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV#Pre-production: “In 1934, family-owned Michelin, as the largest creditor, took over the bankrupt Citroën company. The new management commissioned a market survey, conducted by Jacques Duclos. France at that time had a large rural population which could not yet afford cars; Citroën used the survey results to prepare a design brief for a low-priced, rugged "umbrella on four wheels" that would enable four people to transport 50 kg (110 lb) of farm goods to market at 50 km/h (30 mph), if necessary across muddy, unpaved roads. In fuel economy, the car would use no more than 3 L/100 km (95 mpg‑imp; 80 mpg‑US). One design parameter required that customers be able to transport eggs across a freshly ploughed field without breakage.”
- bell-cot 3y ago
  I like the look of it. But I also like the look of the AirTruk, so ...
themaninthedark 3y ago
She thinks my tractor's sexy

N19PEDL2 3y ago

In my opinion, aesthetics is an important factor when a product has to appeal to the general public: people want to use products that look good and can be shown to other people without embarrassment. On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. In this case, those who choose and select products are usually accountable for their choices, and aesthetics is not an objective criterion that can be used to justify the choice.

Gare 3y ago
Well, SpaceX kinda runs contrary to that. And who's to say they're wrong? Sexy rockets bring interest and make engineers proud.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  They also lead to decisions made not on merit but on hype, and on cults of personality.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Usually with a weird design, the problem is that weird often means uncommon, limited-supplier parts, which are more of a cost driver than just looking weird. It is cheap and easy to go down the well-trodden path.
wolverine876 3y ago
> On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. I think that's the ideal, but greatly underestimates the human factor in practice. People are biased by aesthetics. And also nobody wants to be a laughing-stock, presenting the comical option to the team, management, board, etc. For government, nobody wants to have themselves all over the media and social media next to the absurdly comical thing they are presenting.

CWuestefeld 3y ago

This seems parallel to the discussion of how NBA players shoot foul shots. From what I've read, experiments show that basket percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot", compared to the conventional way of shooting. Why, then, don't we see players shooting this way? You'd think that the coaches would tell players to do this to help the team, and that they'd want to, to boost their own stats. But it seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it conflicts with other priorities about building their individual "brands". edit: learn to spell "basket"

BerislavLopac 3y ago
This reminds me of the introduction of the V-style [0] in ski jumping: it was originally deemed inappropriate by the judges, who scored it lower, but it provided so much more distance that today it's the most widely used technique. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_jumping_techniques#V-style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_jumping_techniques#V-style
- Doxin 3y ago
  It's still wild to me that ski-jumping is a jury sport. Seems to me that it'd be simplest to just... measure distance? But I guess distance is one of the least important things to the score.
kleton 3y ago
Possibly the additional time investment required to master two different throws vs learning a specialized throw for foul shots.
vanderZwan 3y ago
> experiments show that basked percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot" There is also the Dutch sport "korfbal" (which literally translates to basketball, funny enough) where the baskets are higher, smaller and have no board, and you are not allowed to shoot if blocked anyway. Everyone shoots with two hands, and the equivalent of the lay-up is even sort-of done underhandedly. Speaking of social norms and not wanting to look "uncool", korfbal is often talked about as a very dorky sport, even though it is fairly popular in the Netherlands. Most commonly by men who insist real men play football (soccer for the Americans). Speaking as a man who really enjoyed korfbal growing up, I suspect this is mainly because it's a unisex team-sport. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis

breischl 3y ago

> clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) They tried something similar for ships and a few planes. I think it wasn't very effective as camouflage though, and was more intended to confuse the distance & direction of travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage > had a laughably ugly form The B-52 was called the "Big Ugly Fat F". The A-10 was called the "Warthog". Both considered ugly but effective. That said, there probably is some effect, it's just hard to measure.

V-eHGsd_ 3y ago
the x-32, the plane that was competing with the f-35 (neé x-35) in the joint strike fighter program looked _weird_; it looks like a pelican opening its mouth. I remember watching a documentary about the JSF where someone said that its looks definitely played a role in it not getting picked.

winnit 3y ago

I once visited an army surplus store which stocked a kind of string vest which looked like a fish-net but with thicker cords. The proprietor claimed it was developed by the Swedish military for its effectiveness in hot weather but didn’t become popular because of pushback from soldiers who didn’t want to wear it because it looked kind of gimpy.

zizee 3y ago

People have suggested that the X32 was not chosen by the air force (instead of the chosen F22) because of ugliness. Note: I don't know if this is true or not, and I don't know the performance capabilities of each aircraft. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighters-almost-replaced-f-22-and-f-35-100682 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighte...

throwup238 3y ago
The X32 lost to the X35 (which became F35), not the F22 Raptor. The X32 performed worse in range/payload capacity, Boeing had lots of difficulties developing STOVL on the platform, the delta wing design was less efficient, and Lockheed was still riding high on its success with the F22 program (which no one has really bothered competing with decades later) so it's unlikely that aesthetics were the deciding factor.
bloopernova 3y ago
Slight nitpick: The X32 competed with the now-F35. The YF23 lost to the F22. I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service. EDIT: beaten to the comment by 3 minutes. Oh my poor pedantic soul.
- iamthirsty 3y ago
  > I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service. It is, but so is the F-22 and because it was a one or the other choice, I personally like the direction they went.

Consultant32452 3y ago

We bought $30 Million worth of camouflage for military contractors in Afghanistan because some Afghan defense minister thought the pattern looked cool, despite providing no camouflage capabilities in that environment. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-wasted-30-million-on-buying-the-wrong-pattern-of-afghan-army-uniforms https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-...

morkalork 3y ago

The initial prototypes for the F117 were famously not well recieved for how ugly and un-aerodynamic looking they were.

grotorea 3y ago

I can't remember the specific sources but at least for the military the things that violate social normals and aren't done do happen, although it's usually something more political than aesthetics. But then that runs the risk of having that military force outcompeted and defeated.

TacticalCoder 3y ago

> Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity. I don't know about that but aesthetics isn't just something humans pay attention to. Many females in the animal kingdom prefer to mate with the males we, humans, also find the most beautiful. For example birds of paradise: females picks the males we humans find to be the most harmonious. Why do most find the plane in TFA fucking ugly? I don't know but I do certainly also find it ugly. But what I do know is I don't want to be imposed ugly in my life and I don't want to impose ugly on others. I'm siding with the birds of paradise on that one...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rwky 3y ago

>Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a headlamp, a camelback, etc. I've done the camelback a few times, seems perfectly normal to me ;)

wolverine876 3y ago
All day, every day?
- rwky 3y ago
  Only during summer.

lmm 3y ago

> But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line? Military transport planes have rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer. The only reason airlines don't do the same is that passengers wouldn't be happy.

rootusrootus 3y ago
> rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't the same thing as a military transport plane. For example, things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. It's also important, IMO, to note that "passengers wouldn't be happy" is a slight underestimate. The number of people barfing from motion sickness would go up pretty dramatically, for one. Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. And then of course there's the problem of frequency. Passenger plane crashes are rare enough now that squeezing out the last little bit of safety by causing serious discomfort and other headaches is probably not a good trade-off.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. That assumes rapid deceleration. I can certainly imagine that happening in many undesireable situations, major and minor, but how often is there rapid acceleration, minor (e.g., turbulance) or major (e.g. in an uncontrolled dive - if that ever really happens, and if survival is possible regardless)? > things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. > Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. I'd like a seat in the rear, please.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > That assumes rapid deceleration. Sure, but my understanding is that the only time a rear facing seat has an advantage is when decelerating rapidly. The seat back can support your body better than a lap belt.

winphone1974 3y ago

The warthog is a pretty ugly plane IMO, yet well loved and highly productive, so function seems to have won.

LightBug1 3y ago
Nah, not ugly, beastly ... it's a great look.

killjoywashere 3y ago

The modern military has little cash to spare on looking good. Where it's critically important, the impact is measured: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215881/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215881/

wolverine876 3y ago
The modern US military has $800+ billion to spend.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  The US Government is a well-armed insurance company. Most of the money goes to healthcare and retirement benefits. As a fraction of national GDP, the US isn't in the top 10.