Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

100% agree, and I'd like to draw out a thread that is highly relevant to the original title. Most damage is done by large groups of people who want simple solutions to complex situations (like, eg, characterising a debate as having precisely two well defined sides).

There are some situations in life that are genuinely complicated (eg, running the logistic system that gets food from farms to houses). I think it might be flat-out impossible to communicate a complicated solution to a large crowd. The best I've ever seen a large crowd do is pick someone who looks like they might be able to tackle the problem and then the collective accepts whatever they get - good or bad.

Realistically, people piping up with some variant of "this simple solution will fix the problem", on topics where they have no actual skin in the game, are the problem. They undermine complicated efforts to resolve situations. Moderation, balance, compromise and attempting to deal with the complexity forthrightly come together to give much better results than using silver bullets.




   characterising a debate as 
   having precisely two well 
   defined sides
I see this as a reaction to complexity: if a subject is too complicated to grasp, comprehend and communicate all relevant subtleties, a common reaction is radical simplification down to two options, with a strong preference for one side.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: