A: “This is a bad problem! We should solve this problem by giving Group X more power to fix it!”
B: “Actually, it sure looks like this problem is plausibly caused by Group X, and certainly they’re exercising all the power they currently have to make it worse. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by giving them more power.”
A: “Bad problems don’t stop being bad just because someone is bad at fault analysis!”
B: “No, they don’t, but listening to your solutions to those bad problems can stop being a good idea because you’re bad at fault analysis.”
In the specific examples above, note that the As in question weren’t even primarily interested in fault analysis at the level of granularity that the Bs wanted to drag the problem into. The Bs also distract you from the problem being real.
“This problem is real” is not itself a useful insight. It is useful to the extent that it might lead to the problem being fixed. And fixing problems is much, much, much harder than identifying them.
Perhaps you have noticed that Bay Area rents are really high. This is, indeed, a problem. But noticing that this is a problem is not a serious contribution to the conversation. If you have successfully identified a real problem, and then proposed a solution that will make it worse, you are not helping on net.
This goes double if someone points out that your solution will make it worse, and you say that you “aren’t even primarily interested in fault analysis at [that] level of granularity” and that them pointing that out will “distract you from the problem being real.”
“This problem is real” is not itself a useful insight.
That’s simply false, except if it’s already widely known anyway.
And fixing problems is much, much, much harder than identifying them.
Often yes, sometimes no. But even if fixing it is harder, recognizing the problem is a necessary condition for fix. So if fixing a problem is important, identifying the problem is *at least as important.*
That’s simply false, except if it’s already widely known anyway
Also a lot of the time the general shape of the problem is known but not specific instantiations, and the instantiations are decision-relevant. Eg it’s widely known that scientific research often doesn’t replicate. But it’s still useful to learn if specific load-bearing papers don’t replicate, and/or if some fields are more prone to research fraud than others.
Similarly, we know at a very high-level of abstraction that often news articles have misleading headlines. But it’s still relevant to know how misleading which headlines are in which ways, and also if an otherwise-respected publication does this much more than normal, this may be decision-relevant for subscription decisions, whether you as an amateur freelance writer want to pitch there, etc.
And “everybody already knows” that companies sometimes sacrifice safety for profits or other priorities. But the details matter!
“This problem is real” is not itself a useful insight.
Perhaps you have noticed that Bay Area rents are really high. This is, indeed, a problem. But noticing that this is a problem is not a serious contribution to the conversation.
Assume for the sake of the argument that everybody knows that Bay Area rents are too high. Are you really saying that three examples I cited above are exactly the same? That “everybody” knows when specific headlines are misleading, that it’s a problem when you don’t quarantine potential carriers at a beginning of an outbreak, and that AI companies should fix safety problems in a timely manner?
Moreover, are you really saying that this generalizes further such that you can never identify a problem without proposing an end-to-end solution? Eg investigative journalism on corruption needs to propose incentive-compatible ways to reduce corruption, scientists identifying issues need to identify solutions in the same paper, AI risk isn’t a problem until people come up with end-to-end solutions, etc, etc?
If you have successfully identified a real problem, and then proposed a solution that will make it worse, you are not helping on net.
Again in the examples above solutions at that level of granularity weren’t yet proposed!
I think you keep responding to a different essay than the one I wrote; your hypothetical and your wider claim about problem-identification both fail to engage with my actual examples.
Are you really saying that three examples I cited above are exactly the same?
Not all of them, but at least one. Let’s take the quarantine one first because that’s the one where I think you do well, and then look at the headlines one next. (The AI one doesn’t have enough detail for me to be clear on what’s going on there).
I think you’re pretty much on the money for the quarantine one, because:
You are pointing to a relatively-large problem that many people are genuinely unaware of. (Before reading your post I had...uh...some vague idea that some people on a cruise ship had some virus).
You aren’t proposing any working solution—but you’re clear that you don’t have a proposed solution, and also aren’t proposing anything actively harmful.
I do think you may be missing some important points in your quarantine commentary. Like, yes. There are some potential major beneficial effects of these potential carriers being quarantined. By. Uh. Some international organization that can unilaterally detain citizens of multiple different sovereign nations overseas without trial and prevent them from returning home. That seems to me...potentially fraught.
But (as you say), you aren’t proposing solutions at that level of granularity, and you’re being up-front about that. You’re pointing to a situation that looks bad and saying “is there anything we can do about this?” Maybe, on reflection, the answer to this will end up being “it’s going to be a very big diplomatic effort to get even small steps on this problem, and it doesn’t seem likely to succeed.” But that’s not your fault, and everything you have said on this is reasonable.
On the other hand, the headlines point I think is a much less encouraging one for your view.
Lots of headlines are misleading. What can we do about this? Should we go harass journalists about it? Or perhaps we should go harass editors about it? Those are both proposed solutions at a fair level of granularity. You...seem to me to rather be suggesting both of them. And both of them are (at least in my opinion) bad ideas.
The reason why headlines are misleading is because these businesses need to attract readers in order to continue to exist, and readers demand exaggerated headlines. Talking about which particular employees of a newspaper you should personally harass in order to improve the accuracy of the headlines is like talking about which particular employees of Walmart you should personally harass in order to make them stop selling Twinkies and start selling healthier food.
Here, I think that:
You are pointing to a relatively-small problem that everyone reading your post is already aware of.
You are proposing a solution that seems to me to be actively bad.
and so I think that your overall net score here does not come out positive.
Moreover, are you really saying that this generalizes further such that you can never identify a problem without proposing an end-to-end solution?
Not quite. I’m saying that the value of your contribution has two elements:
Pointing to a problem. You gain points here by pointing out real, large problems that your readers are not already familiar with.
Suggesting a solution. You gain points here by suggesting reasonable solutions, and lose points here by suggesting bad solutions.
If Alice points out a substantial new problem, without particularly proposing a detailed solution beyond ‘can we do something about this’, and people are responding by nitpicking issues like that, I agree that’s bad.
But I think it’s a vastly more common situation for Alice to point out a problem that everyone is already aware of and propose an actively bad solution. And I think that the correct response to that looks almost identical to the nitpicking that annoys you.
A: “This is a bad problem! We should solve this problem by giving Group X more power to fix it!”
B: “Actually, it sure looks like this problem is plausibly caused by Group X, and certainly they’re exercising all the power they currently have to make it worse. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by giving them more power.”
A: “Bad problems don’t stop being bad just because someone is bad at fault analysis!”
B: “No, they don’t, but listening to your solutions to those bad problems can stop being a good idea because you’re bad at fault analysis.”
In the specific examples above, note that the As in question weren’t even primarily interested in fault analysis at the level of granularity that the Bs wanted to drag the problem into. The Bs also distract you from the problem being real.
“This problem is real” is not itself a useful insight. It is useful to the extent that it might lead to the problem being fixed. And fixing problems is much, much, much harder than identifying them.
Perhaps you have noticed that Bay Area rents are really high. This is, indeed, a problem. But noticing that this is a problem is not a serious contribution to the conversation. If you have successfully identified a real problem, and then proposed a solution that will make it worse, you are not helping on net.
This goes double if someone points out that your solution will make it worse, and you say that you “aren’t even primarily interested in fault analysis at [that] level of granularity” and that them pointing that out will “distract you from the problem being real.”
That’s simply false, except if it’s already widely known anyway.
Often yes, sometimes no. But even if fixing it is harder, recognizing the problem is a necessary condition for fix. So if fixing a problem is important, identifying the problem is *at least as important.*
Also a lot of the time the general shape of the problem is known but not specific instantiations, and the instantiations are decision-relevant. Eg it’s widely known that scientific research often doesn’t replicate. But it’s still useful to learn if specific load-bearing papers don’t replicate, and/or if some fields are more prone to research fraud than others.
Similarly, we know at a very high-level of abstraction that often news articles have misleading headlines. But it’s still relevant to know how misleading which headlines are in which ways, and also if an otherwise-respected publication does this much more than normal, this may be decision-relevant for subscription decisions, whether you as an amateur freelance writer want to pitch there, etc.
And “everybody already knows” that companies sometimes sacrifice safety for profits or other priorities. But the details matter!
Assume for the sake of the argument that everybody knows that Bay Area rents are too high. Are you really saying that three examples I cited above are exactly the same? That “everybody” knows when specific headlines are misleading, that it’s a problem when you don’t quarantine potential carriers at a beginning of an outbreak, and that AI companies should fix safety problems in a timely manner?
Moreover, are you really saying that this generalizes further such that you can never identify a problem without proposing an end-to-end solution? Eg investigative journalism on corruption needs to propose incentive-compatible ways to reduce corruption, scientists identifying issues need to identify solutions in the same paper, AI risk isn’t a problem until people come up with end-to-end solutions, etc, etc?
Again in the examples above solutions at that level of granularity weren’t yet proposed!
I think you keep responding to a different essay than the one I wrote; your hypothetical and your wider claim about problem-identification both fail to engage with my actual examples.
Not all of them, but at least one. Let’s take the quarantine one first because that’s the one where I think you do well, and then look at the headlines one next. (The AI one doesn’t have enough detail for me to be clear on what’s going on there).
--------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re pretty much on the money for the quarantine one, because:
You are pointing to a relatively-large problem that many people are genuinely unaware of. (Before reading your post I had...uh...some vague idea that some people on a cruise ship had some virus).
You aren’t proposing any working solution—but you’re clear that you don’t have a proposed solution, and also aren’t proposing anything actively harmful.
I do think you may be missing some important points in your quarantine commentary. Like, yes. There are some potential major beneficial effects of these potential carriers being quarantined. By. Uh. Some international organization that can unilaterally detain citizens of multiple different sovereign nations overseas without trial and prevent them from returning home. That seems to me...potentially fraught.
But (as you say), you aren’t proposing solutions at that level of granularity, and you’re being up-front about that. You’re pointing to a situation that looks bad and saying “is there anything we can do about this?” Maybe, on reflection, the answer to this will end up being “it’s going to be a very big diplomatic effort to get even small steps on this problem, and it doesn’t seem likely to succeed.” But that’s not your fault, and everything you have said on this is reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the headlines point I think is a much less encouraging one for your view.
Lots of headlines are misleading. What can we do about this? Should we go harass journalists about it? Or perhaps we should go harass editors about it? Those are both proposed solutions at a fair level of granularity. You...seem to me to rather be suggesting both of them. And both of them are (at least in my opinion) bad ideas.
The reason why headlines are misleading is because these businesses need to attract readers in order to continue to exist, and readers demand exaggerated headlines. Talking about which particular employees of a newspaper you should personally harass in order to improve the accuracy of the headlines is like talking about which particular employees of Walmart you should personally harass in order to make them stop selling Twinkies and start selling healthier food.
Here, I think that:
You are pointing to a relatively-small problem that everyone reading your post is already aware of.
You are proposing a solution that seems to me to be actively bad.
and so I think that your overall net score here does not come out positive.
--------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. I’m saying that the value of your contribution has two elements:
Pointing to a problem. You gain points here by pointing out real, large problems that your readers are not already familiar with.
Suggesting a solution. You gain points here by suggesting reasonable solutions, and lose points here by suggesting bad solutions.
If Alice points out a substantial new problem, without particularly proposing a detailed solution beyond ‘can we do something about this’, and people are responding by nitpicking issues like that, I agree that’s bad.
But I think it’s a vastly more common situation for Alice to point out a problem that everyone is already aware of and propose an actively bad solution. And I think that the correct response to that looks almost identical to the nitpicking that annoys you.