For example, people can have a legitimate complaint about healthcare being inaccessible for them, and yet the suggestion many would propose will be something like “government should spend more money on homeopathy and spiritual healing, and should definitely stop vaccination and other evil unnatural things”.
Yes. This brings to mind a general piece of wisdom for startups collecting product feedback: that feedback expressing painpoints/emotion is valuable, whereas feedback expressing implementation/solutions is not.
The ideal direct-democratic system, I think, would do this: dividing comments like “My cost of living is too high” (valuable) from “Taxes need to go down because my cost of living is too high” (possibly, but an incomplete extrapolation).
This parsing seems possible in principle. I could imagine a system where feedback per person is capped, which would incentivize people to express the core of their issues rather than extraneous solution details (unless they happen to be solution-level experts).
feedback expressing painpoints/emotion is valuable, whereas feedback expressing implementation/solutions is not.
Yep. Or, let’s say that the kind of feedback that provides solutions is worthless 99% of time. Because it is possible in principle to provide a good advice, it’s just that most people do not have the necessary qualification and experience but may be overconfident about their qualification.
I find it ironical that popular wisdom seems to go the other way round, and “constructive criticism” is praised as the right thing to do. Which just doesn’t make sense; for example I can say that a meal tastes bad, even if I don’t know how to cook; or I can complain about pain without being able to cure it.
Yes. This brings to mind a general piece of wisdom for startups collecting product feedback: that feedback expressing painpoints/emotion is valuable, whereas feedback expressing implementation/solutions is not.
The ideal direct-democratic system, I think, would do this: dividing comments like “My cost of living is too high” (valuable) from “Taxes need to go down because my cost of living is too high” (possibly, but an incomplete extrapolation).
This parsing seems possible in principle. I could imagine a system where feedback per person is capped, which would incentivize people to express the core of their issues rather than extraneous solution details (unless they happen to be solution-level experts).
Yep. Or, let’s say that the kind of feedback that provides solutions is worthless 99% of time. Because it is possible in principle to provide a good advice, it’s just that most people do not have the necessary qualification and experience but may be overconfident about their qualification.
I find it ironical that popular wisdom seems to go the other way round, and “constructive criticism” is praised as the right thing to do. Which just doesn’t make sense; for example I can say that a meal tastes bad, even if I don’t know how to cook; or I can complain about pain without being able to cure it.