Hacker News Reader

Comment by SavantIdiot | Hacker News Reader

I know most of you hate this word, but this is a great example of what privilege looks like: thinking you can solve a problem you have zero experience with, and not including people who do.

Another example:

I was at a hackathon and met this kid who wanted to build a wristband for domestic violence victims so they could push a button and call for help when they were being abused.

Great idea, he wants to use his tech knowledge to help abused spouses! That's fantastic! Nothing wrong with that and it should be supported. But since he has never experienced being an abuse victim, nor did he consult any, he didn't realize what a useless idea this is. (As soon as the abuser knows what the device is, you think they will allow it in the house, let alone take heavy retribution for buying it? Even if it was a subtle/hidden device, being caught with it would mean even more abuse.)

Heart is in the right place, but intellectual arrogance needs some dialing in.

View on HN

I'm kind of with your point but also not. You don't have to actually be a victim of cancer or even know anyone personally who has cancer, to help cure it. To say "it's privilege" is a weird way of phrasing it. It's just a person who needs to do better user research before building a product.

We're not talking about cancer. We're talking about things that involve human psychology and behavior.

Privilege is why they didn't do "better user research": the person making the proposal doesn't even consider those they would impact.

> We're not talking about cancer. We're talking about things that involve human psychology and behavior.

Yes, it's a slightly different field. I don't see how that changes the point. The point is that plenty of people who aren't first hand victims of something still come up with solutions for it. This is just an example of someone who didn't. I don't really see how framing it about privileged vs not privileged inventors is helpful. All that matters is the technology ideas and how best to come up with them. And we all agree user research is good.

Bringing up privilege is important because someone who is aware of it can cut off this sort of mistake before they make them. We indeed agree that user research is good. So I'd imagine we agree that it's good to think "I should put the perspective and experiences of my users front and center." And that's exactly what it takes to not be privileged.

I see what you're saying, but let me try to explain what I see as the difference between the two situations.

Curing cancer is about biology, chemistry, etc. It literally does not require any experience having cancer as you stated. Just lots of research and college education.

However, if you said you were going to write an app to cure "the mental anxiety associated with having cancer," and you've never had cancer, but in your mind the cure is to strap on VR goggles, isolate yourself and play minecraft, then yes, that would be "privilege".

You're assuming you have the solution but you have zero lived experience. That's the difference as I see it.

(Obviously I don't mean "you" as in you personally.)

Psychologists help cure anxiety, depression, addiction, etc. all the time without actually suffering from it themselves. They're "privileged" not to suffer from it themselves or even necessarily have any friends or family who suffer from it. They just do good user research before creating a solution presumably. Also, conversely, plenty of people who have "lived experience" of how they cured their anxiety with a cult religion or some placebo diet or something aren't necessarily very helpful experts for other people either. So I just don't see how framing the conversation about who is or isn't privileged is really helpful?

"They just do good user research before creating a solution presumably."

That would kind of be the point, right? Rather than saying, "Just do X", they try to understand the problem first and don't just throw out ideas that solve what they a-priori think the problem is while also being what they think of as easy to implement.

Yup.

Just curious if you know any psychologists that fit into this category? I know a handful pretty well and all specialize in areas they have direct experience with. They also 'experience' their clients pain, similar to a masseuse. Perhaps it's like being a developer without hands on experience with css, networking, or virtualization etc... You can still be a really good developer, but you probably can't say you're great at it or be a worthwhile resource for teaching others.

Not personally, but I'm sure there's a mix of both types.

You are ignoring what I wrote. Please re-read my comments because I already explicitly addressed this both times: it is not "privilege" when the psychologists literally consult their patients and work together on a solution.

It is helpful to frame it this way because someone who has no first hand experience, nor have they consulted with those who have, are claiming a solution. Think of privilege as a class of arrogance that comes from ignorance.

I read what you wrote which is why I replied saying calling it “privilege” is a weird way of phrasing what is essentially “user research” or “due diligence”. How is the “privilege” and “lived experience” framing helpful? Nobody would care if the solution was good. All that matters is the solution itself, not who came up with it. But of course, one is more likely to come up with a good solution if they do good user research first. I think “laziness” is a better descriptor.

By the way, I mentioned psychologists the second time not as a repeat example to curing cancer, but as an example of something which is more about “lived experience” of people, yet is still cured by people without the “lived experience”. You literally mentioned anxiety in your example, so I brought it up that people cure it all the time without suffering from it themselves.

Psychologists attend years of school and training for the express purpose of understanding their clients' experiences.

There are multiple ways out of privileged obliviousness. One is lived experience. Another is taking the time to develop a structured and empathetic understanding.

Harsh words. If they can persuade even a single person to gather enough domain knowledge to validate their efforts, I suppose they could do some good.

That said, whenever I see someone doing the Dunning Kruger Maneuver, I try to approach with compassion and communicate the constraints they are missing without mocking them, humiliating them, and forcing them into a corner where they publicly lose face. Misplaced confidence is a universal and human problem, not limited to technologists, and it's an excellent place to apply the golden rule. Caveman Science Fiction illustrates it happening in reverse:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bw3le/caveman_science...

For a real world reverse example, consider Jurassic Park. It convinced a generation of casual moviegoers that they understood the risks of genetic engineering to be severe and untamable, even though the movie was the furthest thing from a risk analysis: the dinosaurs were guaranteed to get out, otherwise nobody would pay to see the movie, including myself.

In any case, the moment anyone brings out accusations of arrogance, privilege, naiveté, etc is the moment that battle lines are drawn and all hope of civil discourse goes out the window. That's often a waste, because most of these situations can be course-corrected without verbal bloodshed.

"[Jurassic Park] convinced a generation of casual moviegoers that they understood the risks of genetic engineering to be severe and untamable...."

Well, from what I remember, it taught a generation that "those people are stupid and if they'd just done X, everything would have worked out unicorns and rainbows."

> communicate the constraints they are missing without mocking them, humiliating them, and forcing them into a corner

This. We need debate that's not about "dunking".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com