Hacker News Reader

Comment by ageek123 | Hacker News Reader

More generally, the entire field of "behavior economics" has a very strong paternalistic, authoritarian subcurrent to it. The message is: people can't be allowed to make decisions for themselves because they aren't capable of acting rationally or in their own self-interest. Of course the idea that the government is more likely to act in people's best interest than people themselves is laughable, yet is actually being advocated as a policy rationale.

View on HN

The whole field of UX has a strong paternalistic feel to it, guiding people toward 'defaults' and making it as easy as possible to make 'correct' choices as if they can't act rationally or in their own self-interest.

I think there is some merit to the practice from a product design standpoint, though - the commonly cited example of a door with such ambiguous design that it needs a "push" or "pull" sign seems to apply here. Sure, we could leave the door as a blank surface with no hints (design or signs or otherwise) and let people decide whether to try and push or pull on their own, but doesn't that just waste everyone's time?

A paternalistic approach isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're being guided through decisions with the benefit of someone else's experience. It helps avoid spending mental effort on decisions which don't matter as much, so utmost attention can be given to those which do.

Maybe, though I'm pretty sure it's also about reducing cognitive load for the user.

Right, because people seldom act rationally, and often act against their own self-interest. The message is an observation.

As for the government acting in people's best interest, yes, exactly, that's what it's for. You are calling your state rep to discuss issues, right? If you're articulate, you can probably even book a 15-minute meeting to chat with them and tell them what's important to you, a citizen in their district.

That's not as fun as posting hur-hur-gubmint-sucks on the internet, though, even though it's definitely more rational and self-interested.

Politicians don't make poor decisions because they don't know any better. They make poor decisions because of the incentives that are presented to them. I don't think you'll be able to have a rational debate and come out ahead with a politician. At best you could bring up some inflammatory story that he can use to his benefit.

I would argue that debate on online forums is much more meaningful. I wouldn't go as far as to say someone's one comment really changed my mind on a big issue but reading discussions on forums like hn has certainly opened up my mind.

The most promising aspect of new technology is that it is being done outside of the traditional power structure, rendering politics less and less meaningful to our every day lives.

As the Chinese proverb goes, "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away"

How much experience do you have in talking to your elected officials?

I'm a little disappointed by the downvotes, and the lack of response; I'm guessing the parent poster has zero experience actually engaging politically, and that's why they said the stuff they did about not having rational discussions with politicians. That stuff just sounds like shallow stereotyping, it doesn't sound like it reflects reality at all.

You're right, I don't regularly go talk to politicians. I wrote emails to a few politicians regarding some issue I felt strongly about and got a canned response that didn't say anything (I believe it was something about internet security or copyright laws and the response was how that politician understands my concern and thinks its important to balance security and simultaneously promote competition).

I did consider going to local council meetings in my home town of New York City, but (without exception) every meeting takes place between late morning to early afternoon on a weekday so I am unable to attend [0]. It might be coincidental, but that kind of scheduling doesn't exactly scream out inclusion for average citizens. Maybe I'm just cynical. If you look at some of the minutes, it's incredibly dull and menial. I randomly selected Council Chambers - City Hall Jointly with the Committee on Consumer Affairs from 5/1:

1. A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the promotion of health and safety at nail salons. (NY Times article drummed up some controversy. Perhaps if they were to talk about immigration policy and extending more rights to undocumented workers, it would be interesting but from what I hear, this will amount to a shake-down and publicity event)

2. A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the posting of information related to services offered at licensed appearance enhancement businesses. (Yelp probably does a better job at this)

3. Resolution calling upon the New York State Legislature to pass, and the Governor to sign, legislation amending the general business law to require periodic retraining of persons licensed to practice appearance enhancement and the Department of State to increase the number of health and safety inspectors who inspect appearance enhancement businesses. (More regulation of hair salons because, you know, public safety of getting a bad perm)

4. Resolution calling upon the New York State Legislature to pass, and the Governor to sign, legislation amending the General Business Law to authorize the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to enforce State health and safety regulations against appearance enhancement establishments and to allow the Department to create a letter grading system for these establishments. (Letter grading hair salons? Really?)

Maybe it's just a New York or US thing. But I personally lost faith in the democratic process for all but the absolutely most mundane and necessary processes required to run a locality.

[0] http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Calendar.aspx

Being able to engage politically is a skill; it generally must be learned.

Your city councilperson isn't going to care about internet security; what could they do about it even if they did? They are going to care about that boring, mundane shit involved in supporting the wide variety of businesses and citizens in a city. Hair salons are important to a lot of people, even if they're not important to you.

Your state rep might have more to say about internet security or privacy or something, but if they're not actively involved, then you can't just go in and say "This is important, do this." Look for other politicians who are pushing privacy regulations for your state, and bring that to the attention of the politicians.

Also, phone, don't email. They've all got a staff of one to several people responding to emails for them, and those people are all so busy that, if you want to build a rapport with them (to eventually be able to set up a 5-minute meeting with the representative in question!), the phone is the way to go.

And remember: what's in it for them, if they're meeting with you? Are you informing them about one person's opinion? Do you represent 150 of your colleagues in NYC tech? Are you speaking on behalf of a trade organization, and these views are important to many voters, not just you?

Yes, this all takes time. If you want to have an impact with the political route, you may have to reprioritize how you spend your free time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com