Talk with people who develop software for a living. This is the universal experience -- you come up with an improvement, and roll it out to your users. They try it. They like it. And immediately they have ideas as to how it could be better, how it made them want new and different features, how it would be better integrated with X, with different colours, controls, persistence, you name it. It's exhausting. Especially when the new demands mean that you will have to do a complete re-write of the feature. "But we asked you about this, " you complain. "Why didn't you tell us you wanted this six months ago, when adding the feature would have been easy? You even told us that you didn't want things like exactly what you are asking for now?" "Ah, " they reply. "But we didn't know that we would want it until after you gave us this." Their imaginations are now fully engaged in 'how could things be better" because the distance between what they have and what they want seems surmountable. Before it wasn't even in the realm of possibility. When your customers tell you, "I never thought about this before"., they are being truthful, even though you have been obsessed with the problem for months now, as part of trying to figure out how to give them the best user experience. It's worse than the "you cannot read their minds" problem. Until you ship version 1.0 of the experience they don't even _have_ an opinion that could be read. (So, for goodness sake, give them enough time to think through their new ideas. Otherwise, you will come back with the new thing they asked for, only to discover that they have thought about it more and no longer want it..")
This is a great model for why it is the case that we have a negativity bias when it comes to news and narratives. Our negativity bias has historically been useful in focusing on problems and their potential solutions. The problem today is that we can now mass produce negativity, but we have a poor understanding of our attraction to it and our need to regulate our negativity consumption. A good analogy is sugar. There's a good, rational reason why we should enjoy sugar based on evolutionary forces. Now that we can mass produce sugar, however, we need to learn how to regulate our consumption or face negative health consequences. Negativity is the same.
A different factor is that improving things for people in the aggregate often makes them unhappier. If the people have low expectations, they tend to be grateful for whatever good they get. It's when things really start to improve, and people can start believing that they 'deserve more' and that 'life ought to be better' that they end up feeling terrible about their circumstances. King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicolas II both discovered that their liberal reforms to their tyrranies lead directly to the bloody revolutions they were hoping to forestall.
Hmmmmm. As a deeply now-pessimistic futures modeler, can I point you to the climate? That is to say, the actual as it changes climate moving so much faster - in bad ways - than the usual discussed models? We already broke 1.5C and are on track for 4.0C or worse. That's basically apocalypse for the human civilization and meanwhile we are arguing about being too negative or not?
Climate is definitely worrying. Are you proposing (1) the claim that this is a good reason to worry, or (2) a hypothesis that climate risk explains why people generically are so pessimistic?
Wrt (1) I'm definitely not in a position to argue the other side. But I was under the impression that recent climate reports (2022 and 2023) had basically ruled out many of the worst-case scenarios we'd worried about in 2000, and that meanwhile wind + solar + EVs have ramped up way faster than most people were predicting even 10 years ago. Is that wrong, or do think even so we're headed for disaster? I don't know what to think about this one.
Wrt (2), I'm pretty skeptical that this could be THE explanation for why most people in the US are pessimistic. (Though it certainly is one of them!) That's just by the numbers: a significant portion of the population are Republicans, who say in opinion polls that they are much less worried about climate than Democrats are. Eg: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Hmmmmm again. Firstly, the worst case scenarios are the ones that are now happening from the models a mere few years ago. So yay! Anecdotal evidence: most of the climate people I know have had their tubes tied, IUD, or vasectomy.
As to pessimism in general, and larger scope than the USSA alone, while bad news sells, there's an awful lot more of it to sell in this shiny new century. In the USSA, the economic sorting and wealth disparities are at levels not seen in a Very Long Time, and so while different people may put the blame for their angst on different causes, there's enough angst and agita to share freely.
Solid piece of writing and love the model. But honestly, the real treasure for me is having a new, succinct self-conception. I am a chart wielding optimist and today I felt seen
“Maybe an orientation toward problem-solving leads people to (rationally!) talk more about problems, which in turns leads them to (rationally!) over-estimate how many problems there are.”
Except that references to what is done so-called “rationally” are typically not really about what is done rationally (i.e., simply by using reason or thought) as such. They are, rather, more precisely about using efficient, optimal, or prudent reasoning (whether by results or by intentions). It might help to discover and solve any real problems if they were described in this more accurate way rather than using “rationally” (especially when this is contrasted with “irrationally”). https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
Agreed, 'rationality' is a hugely contested term. I still think it's a useful one—I generally use it as a synonym for "doing the best you can, given your goals". Of course, terms like 'best' and 'can' and 'goals' are context-sensitive; but often an appropriate Bayesian model is a good-enough approximation, I think.
“Rationality” is rhetorically powerful but philosophically confused. If you don’t replace that word with something clearer, then you appear to be part of the problem that you are complaining about.
“Rationality” as such would appear to be a very general term referring to any reasoning (or thinking). To implicitly use “rationality” to mean optimal, prudent, or efficient reasoning (or even something else entirely) is to narrow the use of that word while simultaneously conflating it with something else. This implicit, narrow, and conflated usage is inherently confused and confusing.
But people do not fall into the same confusion when they use “optimality”, “prudence”, or “efficiency”. (Although, these terms do require theorising that is adequate to any problems that are being addressed.)
A final attempt at clarification. I fully agree that all human rationality (reasoning/thinking) is by intention optimising ("doing the best you can, given your goals"). My point is that this is a contingent fact about human rationality rather than part of what rationality inherently is. (Assume, “All known roads lead to Rome”: that does not mean that “roads” inherently “lead to Rome”.)
A problem: counterfactual reality. How good could things be had we took less silly actions, if our democracies and journalism weren't so obviously fake, if our systems of coordination weren't so non-existent, etc?
I see, so the reply is that (1) things are better than they have been, but (2) the GAP between how good things COULD BE and how good things ARE is bigger than before. Is that the idea?
Hadn't come across that proposal before. Interesting! Will think on it.
My initial thought is that although this measure definitely captures something, it's a bit of a strange measure of whether or not the worlds getting "better" (as, remember only 6% of people agreed to). If you ask me whether iPhones today are better than those in 2007, I'll say "yes"—even though in 2007 they were at the leading edge of the possible technology, while today there's (let's suppose) a lot of room for improvement with (say) integration of AI into Siri, etc.
Talk with people who develop software for a living. This is the universal experience -- you come up with an improvement, and roll it out to your users. They try it. They like it. And immediately they have ideas as to how it could be better, how it made them want new and different features, how it would be better integrated with X, with different colours, controls, persistence, you name it. It's exhausting. Especially when the new demands mean that you will have to do a complete re-write of the feature. "But we asked you about this, " you complain. "Why didn't you tell us you wanted this six months ago, when adding the feature would have been easy? You even told us that you didn't want things like exactly what you are asking for now?" "Ah, " they reply. "But we didn't know that we would want it until after you gave us this." Their imaginations are now fully engaged in 'how could things be better" because the distance between what they have and what they want seems surmountable. Before it wasn't even in the realm of possibility. When your customers tell you, "I never thought about this before"., they are being truthful, even though you have been obsessed with the problem for months now, as part of trying to figure out how to give them the best user experience. It's worse than the "you cannot read their minds" problem. Until you ship version 1.0 of the experience they don't even _have_ an opinion that could be read. (So, for goodness sake, give them enough time to think through their new ideas. Otherwise, you will come back with the new thing they asked for, only to discover that they have thought about it more and no longer want it..")
That's a great example! I hadn't thought of that before, but you're right it seems to fit the dynamic perfectly
This is a great model for why it is the case that we have a negativity bias when it comes to news and narratives. Our negativity bias has historically been useful in focusing on problems and their potential solutions. The problem today is that we can now mass produce negativity, but we have a poor understanding of our attraction to it and our need to regulate our negativity consumption. A good analogy is sugar. There's a good, rational reason why we should enjoy sugar based on evolutionary forces. Now that we can mass produce sugar, however, we need to learn how to regulate our consumption or face negative health consequences. Negativity is the same.
Nice, I like the analogy!
The kind of stuff that is getting better is mostly nerds inventing new tech.
I think people rationally perceive that a lot of our poor performing institutions had nothing to do with that and don't deserve any credit.
Like I can think that new medical tech is cool and that our health insurance system sucks at the same time.
A different factor is that improving things for people in the aggregate often makes them unhappier. If the people have low expectations, they tend to be grateful for whatever good they get. It's when things really start to improve, and people can start believing that they 'deserve more' and that 'life ought to be better' that they end up feeling terrible about their circumstances. King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicolas II both discovered that their liberal reforms to their tyrranies lead directly to the bloody revolutions they were hoping to forestall.
Hmmmmm. As a deeply now-pessimistic futures modeler, can I point you to the climate? That is to say, the actual as it changes climate moving so much faster - in bad ways - than the usual discussed models? We already broke 1.5C and are on track for 4.0C or worse. That's basically apocalypse for the human civilization and meanwhile we are arguing about being too negative or not?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03082020/climate-change-scenarios-emissions/ was written in late 2019 and published in 2020 and now looks optimistic. Yay.
I'm really fuckin' popular at parties.
Climate is definitely worrying. Are you proposing (1) the claim that this is a good reason to worry, or (2) a hypothesis that climate risk explains why people generically are so pessimistic?
Wrt (1) I'm definitely not in a position to argue the other side. But I was under the impression that recent climate reports (2022 and 2023) had basically ruled out many of the worst-case scenarios we'd worried about in 2000, and that meanwhile wind + solar + EVs have ramped up way faster than most people were predicting even 10 years ago. Is that wrong, or do think even so we're headed for disaster? I don't know what to think about this one.
Wrt (2), I'm pretty skeptical that this could be THE explanation for why most people in the US are pessimistic. (Though it certainly is one of them!) That's just by the numbers: a significant portion of the population are Republicans, who say in opinion polls that they are much less worried about climate than Democrats are. Eg: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Hmmmmm again. Firstly, the worst case scenarios are the ones that are now happening from the models a mere few years ago. So yay! Anecdotal evidence: most of the climate people I know have had their tubes tied, IUD, or vasectomy.
As to pessimism in general, and larger scope than the USSA alone, while bad news sells, there's an awful lot more of it to sell in this shiny new century. In the USSA, the economic sorting and wealth disparities are at levels not seen in a Very Long Time, and so while different people may put the blame for their angst on different causes, there's enough angst and agita to share freely.
This substack https://www.experimental-history.com/p/underrated-ideas-in-psychology-volume
in the section '4. We cannot have nice things ..' talks about a psychology experiement and paper directly relevant to your question.
Solid piece of writing and love the model. But honestly, the real treasure for me is having a new, succinct self-conception. I am a chart wielding optimist and today I felt seen
“Maybe an orientation toward problem-solving leads people to (rationally!) talk more about problems, which in turns leads them to (rationally!) over-estimate how many problems there are.”
Except that references to what is done so-called “rationally” are typically not really about what is done rationally (i.e., simply by using reason or thought) as such. They are, rather, more precisely about using efficient, optimal, or prudent reasoning (whether by results or by intentions). It might help to discover and solve any real problems if they were described in this more accurate way rather than using “rationally” (especially when this is contrasted with “irrationally”). https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
Agreed, 'rationality' is a hugely contested term. I still think it's a useful one—I generally use it as a synonym for "doing the best you can, given your goals". Of course, terms like 'best' and 'can' and 'goals' are context-sensitive; but often an appropriate Bayesian model is a good-enough approximation, I think.
“Rationality” is rhetorically powerful but philosophically confused. If you don’t replace that word with something clearer, then you appear to be part of the problem that you are complaining about.
Hm. Why do you think 'rationality' is confused in a way that 'optimality' or 'prudent' isn't?
“Rationality” as such would appear to be a very general term referring to any reasoning (or thinking). To implicitly use “rationality” to mean optimal, prudent, or efficient reasoning (or even something else entirely) is to narrow the use of that word while simultaneously conflating it with something else. This implicit, narrow, and conflated usage is inherently confused and confusing.
But people do not fall into the same confusion when they use “optimality”, “prudence”, or “efficiency”. (Although, these terms do require theorising that is adequate to any problems that are being addressed.)
I say slightly more in this dictionary entry on the subject: https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
I like that post! I think we have different views of the relative costs and benefits of using "rational" vs the other terms—but I take the point!
A final attempt at clarification. I fully agree that all human rationality (reasoning/thinking) is by intention optimising ("doing the best you can, given your goals"). My point is that this is a contingent fact about human rationality rather than part of what rationality inherently is. (Assume, “All known roads lead to Rome”: that does not mean that “roads” inherently “lead to Rome”.)
A problem: counterfactual reality. How good could things be had we took less silly actions, if our democracies and journalism weren't so obviously fake, if our systems of coordination weren't so non-existent, etc?
I see, so the reply is that (1) things are better than they have been, but (2) the GAP between how good things COULD BE and how good things ARE is bigger than before. Is that the idea?
Hadn't come across that proposal before. Interesting! Will think on it.
My initial thought is that although this measure definitely captures something, it's a bit of a strange measure of whether or not the worlds getting "better" (as, remember only 6% of people agreed to). If you ask me whether iPhones today are better than those in 2007, I'll say "yes"—even though in 2007 they were at the leading edge of the possible technology, while today there's (let's suppose) a lot of room for improvement with (say) integration of AI into Siri, etc.