4 ms·

I hate it that simplistic naratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies. Data is not like anything. It's its own thing that

by mihaic 2y ago

I hate it that simplistic naratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies. Data is not like anything. It's its own thing that shouldn't be sold or abused like it is right now, and nobody will ever get it as long as they need to use analogies to understand it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
The analogue pertains to government treatment, not the data itself. You need analogies for people who are less technically savvy, like most legislators.
- mihaic 2y ago
  > You need analogies for people who are less technically savvy, like most legislators. You don't need to have a PhD in computer science to understand what data is and what can be done by aggregating and reselling it. You just need some intelligence, curiosity and honest interest in the issue. If you pass laws on technology, maybe spend 30 hours and learn basic Python. When people are treated as not able to understand a complex argument, you'll get a population that can't even digest most basic arguments.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    The analogy is not about technical or theoretical understanding of data. It's about how (personally identifiable) data should or should not be allowed to be used societally. Analogically its the same as not being allowed to sell your vote.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
jampekka 2y ago
The analogy is that there are things that can't be sold and bought. Which is for many people starting to be an incomprehensible concept because of the totalitarian market ideology of our time.
- hakunin 2y ago
  The worst use of analogy in my view is to use it not for improving understanding, but for morally loading the subject with the baggage from the analogy. When you say that data is like organs, you are morally loading all of our worst perceptions on what organ trade can be (harvesting, trafficking, and exploitation crimes) onto data. Data resale is serious for different reasons, and trying to morally load it with organ considerations is obfuscating those reasons. We should instead understand those reasons for data itself.
krisoft 2y ago
> I hate it that simplistic naratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies. At least they have a "simplistic narrative". You just vaguely gesture towards what you think should happen without any reasoning or argument to support your point. > Data is not like anything. Every model is wrong, some are useful.
- mihaic 2y ago
  > Every model is wrong, some are useful. Yes, and I'm saying this one isn't useful, it's worse than no model at all. I can still be correct in pointing out that something is bad even if I don't have something better.
  - amelius 2y ago
    For you the model may be bad. But for 90% of US population it may be useful. Or, it may be useful to some if 90% of the US population believed the model.
  - josefritzishere 2y ago
    Is that quote from George Box or does it go back further? I've always liked it.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > Yes, and I'm saying this one isn't useful I hear you say it, but you provide still no reasoning. Not even a handwave. Do you expect us to intuit your thinking? Why is it not usefull? What do you find disagreable with the article’s reasoning? > I can still be correct in pointing out that something is bad even if I don't have something better. You could be. You are not convincing. The article is. So who is winning here? “Simplistic narrative” vs “believe it because mihaic says so”?
    - mihaic 2y ago
      > You are not convincing. The article is. So who is winning here? “Simplistic narrative” vs “believe it because mihaic says so”? Yeah, and I was just expressing my opinion on disliking that simple narratives are winning. If you were honestly trying to have a conversation, and were genuinely curios of my arguments, I'd put in the effort to explain them, like hakunin for instance posted slightly above. I could for instance talk about how I feel like the overuse of analogies is dumbing the audience, like how movie scenes of "hacking" get removed from reality, but the medium develops a language of its own. Data is also hard to explain properly since a difference in scale change the nature of what abuses you can make with it. I could here introduce the analogy to the problems of solving a random crime (a data point) versus organized crime, that reached a new dimension simply from scale. But I would also make a point of where this analogy breaks down -- the article merely mentions it's not a perfect analogy and then just continues. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone about what I think about data, but rather of more responsibility in properly communicating concepts, and correcting when someone oversimplified concepts.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"I hate it that simplistic narratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies." Like this one, from math/computer science major who became marketing consultant: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/%22Data_is_the_new_oil%22 https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/%22Data_is_the_new_oil%...

by mihaic 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

The analogue pertains to government treatment, not the data itself. You need analogies for people who are less technically savvy, like most legislators.

mihaic 2y ago
> You need analogies for people who are less technically savvy, like most legislators. You don't need to have a PhD in computer science to understand what data is and what can be done by aggregating and reselling it. You just need some intelligence, curiosity and honest interest in the issue. If you pass laws on technology, maybe spend 30 hours and learn basic Python. When people are treated as not able to understand a complex argument, you'll get a population that can't even digest most basic arguments.
- jampekka 2y ago
  The analogy is not about technical or theoretical understanding of data. It's about how (personally identifiable) data should or should not be allowed to be used societally. Analogically its the same as not being allowed to sell your vote.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

jampekka 2y ago

The analogy is that there are things that can't be sold and bought. Which is for many people starting to be an incomprehensible concept because of the totalitarian market ideology of our time.

hakunin 2y ago
The worst use of analogy in my view is to use it not for improving understanding, but for morally loading the subject with the baggage from the analogy. When you say that data is like organs, you are morally loading all of our worst perceptions on what organ trade can be (harvesting, trafficking, and exploitation crimes) onto data. Data resale is serious for different reasons, and trying to morally load it with organ considerations is obfuscating those reasons. We should instead understand those reasons for data itself.

krisoft 2y ago

> I hate it that simplistic naratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies. At least they have a "simplistic narrative". You just vaguely gesture towards what you think should happen without any reasoning or argument to support your point. > Data is not like anything. Every model is wrong, some are useful.

mihaic 2y ago
> Every model is wrong, some are useful. Yes, and I'm saying this one isn't useful, it's worse than no model at all. I can still be correct in pointing out that something is bad even if I don't have something better.
- amelius 2y ago
  For you the model may be bad. But for 90% of US population it may be useful. Or, it may be useful to some if 90% of the US population believed the model.
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  Is that quote from George Box or does it go back further? I've always liked it.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Yes, and I'm saying this one isn't useful I hear you say it, but you provide still no reasoning. Not even a handwave. Do you expect us to intuit your thinking? Why is it not usefull? What do you find disagreable with the article’s reasoning? > I can still be correct in pointing out that something is bad even if I don't have something better. You could be. You are not convincing. The article is. So who is winning here? “Simplistic narrative” vs “believe it because mihaic says so”?
  - mihaic 2y ago
    > You are not convincing. The article is. So who is winning here? “Simplistic narrative” vs “believe it because mihaic says so”? Yeah, and I was just expressing my opinion on disliking that simple narratives are winning. If you were honestly trying to have a conversation, and were genuinely curios of my arguments, I'd put in the effort to explain them, like hakunin for instance posted slightly above. I could for instance talk about how I feel like the overuse of analogies is dumbing the audience, like how movie scenes of "hacking" get removed from reality, but the medium develops a language of its own. Data is also hard to explain properly since a difference in scale change the nature of what abuses you can make with it. I could here introduce the analogy to the problems of solving a random crime (a data point) versus organized crime, that reached a new dimension simply from scale. But I would also make a point of where this analogy breaks down -- the article merely mentions it's not a perfect analogy and then just continues. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone about what I think about data, but rather of more responsibility in properly communicating concepts, and correcting when someone oversimplified concepts.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"I hate it that simplistic narratives have won in public discourse, and we're stuck with overuse of analogies." Like this one, from math/computer science major who became marketing consultant: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/%22Data_is_the_new_oil%22 https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/%22Data_is_the_new_oil%...