"One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea"
April 25, 2024 7:30 AM Subscribe
When you often notice people "why-don't-they-just"-ing their way into a proposed solution to a gnarly problem, you might turn your criticisms into a checklist. "Your post advocates a [( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante] approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work." These templates often offer a summary of the problem space and a glimpse of experts' frustrations. Solution rejection checklists exist for fixing the housing crisis, beating the CAP Theorem, protecting against DDOS attacks, improving pharmaceutical drug discovery success rates, creating new programming languages and distributed social networks, and (MeFi comment!) saving journalism.
And one person wants to start one for advocating a technical solution to a social problem. (Disclaimer: a friend of mine.)
And one person wants to start one for advocating a technical solution to a social problem. (Disclaimer: a friend of mine.)
Or you can say that "just" is a four letter word.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:54 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:54 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
I've mentioned it before: a law professor once told our class that the answer to any question beginning "why don't they" is usually "money." This doesn't always apply -- for example, if you built the whole plane out of the black box, it couldn't fly. But it's generally a good starting point for looking at a hard question. Who wants to pay for the solution; who wants to have it paid for?
posted by Countess Elena at 8:00 AM on April 25 [17 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 8:00 AM on April 25 [17 favorites]
genpfault, thanks, I'll ask the mods to fix those!
posted by brainwane at 8:00 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
posted by brainwane at 8:00 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
(another example: the Eagles did not refuse to fly to Mordor because of money; it was because it wasn't their job, and also, do you want a power-mad Eagle Ringlord? I did not think so)
posted by Countess Elena at 8:00 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
posted by Countess Elena at 8:00 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Or who benefits from status quo, from not finding solutions?
posted by blue shadows at 8:02 AM on April 25 [14 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 8:02 AM on April 25 [14 favorites]
I am regretting, right now, having used a "why don't they just" joke in any way, shape, or form in the beginning of this post. I hereby request that people consider reading and commenting on any of the links that I posted -- or lambasting me in the form of a checklist.
posted by brainwane at 8:03 AM on April 25 [6 favorites]
posted by brainwane at 8:03 AM on April 25 [6 favorites]
"Your post advocates a [( ) pessimistic ( ) self-righteous ( ) incurious ( ) cliché] approach to squashing creative ideas. Your post is depressing and inhibiting. Here is why it contributes to a widespread feeling of helplessness and impedes efforts that actually would work."
posted by amtho at 8:12 AM on April 25 [35 favorites]
posted by amtho at 8:12 AM on April 25 [35 favorites]
amtho, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Gold star.
I find the rhetorical form of this checklist template intriguing.
The format itself conveys: Your idea is not only bad, it is bad in a way that is a cliché. You are likely unaware of important considerations, and it behooves you to develop some humility and some appreciation of past efforts if you want to succeed in this field.
And several of the checklists use repetition to hammer home that the problem has multiple related but distinct constraints. From the spam countermeasures checklist:
posted by brainwane at 8:19 AM on April 25 [15 favorites]
I find the rhetorical form of this checklist template intriguing.
The format itself conveys: Your idea is not only bad, it is bad in a way that is a cliché. You are likely unaware of important considerations, and it behooves you to develop some humility and some appreciation of past efforts if you want to succeed in this field.
And several of the checklists use repetition to hammer home that the problem has multiple related but distinct constraints. From the spam countermeasures checklist:
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraudOr they use repetition for humor, as with the programming language checklist (but I should note that I am not in favor of PHP contempt):
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
[ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worseAnd, yeah, as amtho criticizes, this approach to criticism can read as dismissive, and does not itself say "here's what we should do instead". I fully believe some people use it to try to shut down a conversation. But I think creating one and posting it, outside of the context of a particular proposal, is more illuminating than discouraging. I may try my hand at one for open source sustainability initiatives, if one doesn't already exist.
[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
[ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
posted by brainwane at 8:19 AM on April 25 [15 favorites]
I've thought something like this should exist, but with a more positive framing. Something like "Here is a list of things that must be addressed by any successful solution", maybe with "Here is a list of previous approaches that have been considered or tried, and here's why they didn't work out."
The assumption is that, hey, a solution probably does exist, or at least an innovative approach that hasn't been tried yet. If you have a germ of an idea, refine it by thinking these things through.
Whereas the "your solution won't work, and here are a long list of reasons why, and by the way I'm using a form because you are dumb and you shouldn't even be trying to think of solutions because you are a form letter recipient who only _thinks_ they have clever ideas, and I am in the busy, creative, authoritative form letter sending class. Also this is in public, which allows me to shame you, which is the surest way to push you to going back to doing manual labor and leaving the thinking and problem-solving to your betters."
posted by amtho at 8:30 AM on April 25 [18 favorites]
The assumption is that, hey, a solution probably does exist, or at least an innovative approach that hasn't been tried yet. If you have a germ of an idea, refine it by thinking these things through.
Whereas the "your solution won't work, and here are a long list of reasons why, and by the way I'm using a form because you are dumb and you shouldn't even be trying to think of solutions because you are a form letter recipient who only _thinks_ they have clever ideas, and I am in the busy, creative, authoritative form letter sending class. Also this is in public, which allows me to shame you, which is the surest way to push you to going back to doing manual labor and leaving the thinking and problem-solving to your betters."
posted by amtho at 8:30 AM on April 25 [18 favorites]
Oh and the "approach to fighting spam" template I link to was written by MeFite lapsed.catholic in 2003 in a Slashdot comment thread. In that Ask thread, lapsed.catholic notes that one source of inspiration was a form letter disproving various proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem.
posted by brainwane at 8:32 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
posted by brainwane at 8:32 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
I've mentioned it before: a law professor once told our class that the answer to any question beginning "why don't they" is usually "money."
I've found that is often a good first order approximation. However, even in that case the question of "Why don't they want to pay?" is important.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:32 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
I've found that is often a good first order approximation. However, even in that case the question of "Why don't they want to pay?" is important.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:32 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
Paraphrased from a tumblr post I once saw and cannot find again, "If you feel you have to ask why everyone doesn't just, or why don't people just, then don't! Everyone has never just ever before, and no one in the future will ever just!"
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 8:46 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 8:46 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
i've always been a fan of "how might we" as a proactive and creative way to frame thinking about challenges. agreed with the sentiments in this thread that "why don't they just" is a cop out.
posted by rude.boy at 8:47 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by rude.boy at 8:47 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure how one makes the universal declaration that people are expected to do "research" before "opening their trap" - verbal (or written) interaction with others is a way of learning too.
posted by stevil at 8:52 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by stevil at 8:52 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
"Why don't they just..." implies that people who are experts have negligently overlooked this trivial solution.
This is where I'm reminded of Harry Shearer's definition of an expert: a talkative fellow from out of town.
posted by Rash at 8:53 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
This is where I'm reminded of Harry Shearer's definition of an expert: a talkative fellow from out of town.
posted by Rash at 8:53 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:55 AM on April 25 [21 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:55 AM on April 25 [21 favorites]
because you are dumb
Not dumb, but (assuming the context of an actual discussion) aggressively simple-minded. Incapable of or uninterested in doing much thinking about the problem, or, God forbid, research, but also of approaching it with modest humility. It's not that hard to say, e.g., "Is there a reason they can't...?" if that's what you actually mean.
I note a related phenomenon on social media (and sometimes Mefi) where tough problems are treated rhetorically as already-solved ones, the solutions only not being adopted because people refuse to, usually for nefarious reasons. And I won't say this is never true, but tough problems are usually tough for a reason beyond just the ubiquitous nefarity of mankind.
posted by praemunire at 8:55 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
Not dumb, but (assuming the context of an actual discussion) aggressively simple-minded. Incapable of or uninterested in doing much thinking about the problem, or, God forbid, research, but also of approaching it with modest humility. It's not that hard to say, e.g., "Is there a reason they can't...?" if that's what you actually mean.
I note a related phenomenon on social media (and sometimes Mefi) where tough problems are treated rhetorically as already-solved ones, the solutions only not being adopted because people refuse to, usually for nefarious reasons. And I won't say this is never true, but tough problems are usually tough for a reason beyond just the ubiquitous nefarity of mankind.
posted by praemunire at 8:55 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
I do remember very clearly seeing that spam document years ago and thinking "Yeah, I guess it really is an intractable or even an unsolvable problem" I'm glad others didn't see it that way and instead kept working until it was largely solved (for email at least)
posted by gwint at 8:55 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
posted by gwint at 8:55 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Sometimes, naively asking "why don't they just..." is the opening in a conversation: the speaker is admitting they don't honestly know something, and looking to learn.
Replying only to tell them to do research is a task that might take days or weeks (and doesn't guarantee they won't end up down some Qanon-style, "did my own research" rathole), and pretty much shuts down the conversation.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:56 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
Replying only to tell them to do research is a task that might take days or weeks (and doesn't guarantee they won't end up down some Qanon-style, "did my own research" rathole), and pretty much shuts down the conversation.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:56 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
The progression when someone gets into an established problem domain is often like this in my experience:
1. Bewilderment and confusion
2. Why don’t they just (some people never progress past this step)
3. I see now why they don’t just. We are stuck where we are and I despair (many people are unable to move from here)
4. (Usually years later) Here’s how we might
Im not sure if it’s possible to get to 4 without passing the intermediate steps? Although refraining from vocalising step 2 is a possibility of course.
I was only aware of the spam checklist, thanks for this
posted by boogieboy at 8:57 AM on April 25 [17 favorites]
1. Bewilderment and confusion
2. Why don’t they just (some people never progress past this step)
3. I see now why they don’t just. We are stuck where we are and I despair (many people are unable to move from here)
4. (Usually years later) Here’s how we might
Im not sure if it’s possible to get to 4 without passing the intermediate steps? Although refraining from vocalising step 2 is a possibility of course.
I was only aware of the spam checklist, thanks for this
posted by boogieboy at 8:57 AM on April 25 [17 favorites]
Although refraining from vocalising step 2 is a possibility of course.
Oh, many insights come from beginner's mind! It's just that you don't have to phrase yourself as if everyone else in the history of the world is an idiot, especially if you're talking to someone who's worked with/lived the problem for a long time.
posted by praemunire at 9:01 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
Oh, many insights come from beginner's mind! It's just that you don't have to phrase yourself as if everyone else in the history of the world is an idiot, especially if you're talking to someone who's worked with/lived the problem for a long time.
posted by praemunire at 9:01 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
the Eagles did not refuse to fly to Mordor because of money; it was because it wasn't their job, and also, do you want a power-mad Eagle Ringlord? I did not think so
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:03 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:03 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
Wondering how often presenting the ignorant with a Solution Rejection Checklist has changed minds, and replaced naivete with wisdom; I guess the answer (NEVER!!) is the 'joke' here. Or as Bertrand Russell said, about the cocksure...
posted by Rash at 9:04 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
posted by Rash at 9:04 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Dragging this back to the general, sometime celebrities have resorted to form letters in order to streamline fan interactions, like Steve Martin, or perhaps they use a service to handle their mail as described in this NPR interview.
Counterpoint: two years ago, I left a stamped, blank postcard with a cover letter at a venue where Frank Turner was going to play. He sent my son a note the very next day, and it blew my kid's mind (and won my heart forever).
posted by wenestvedt at 9:05 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Counterpoint: two years ago, I left a stamped, blank postcard with a cover letter at a venue where Frank Turner was going to play. He sent my son a note the very next day, and it blew my kid's mind (and won my heart forever).
posted by wenestvedt at 9:05 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
They could try a pass?
posted by notoriety public at 9:09 AM on April 25 [11 favorites]
They could try a pass?
posted by notoriety public at 9:09 AM on April 25 [11 favorites]
I remember a joke checklist from years back about buying an advanced fighter aircraft. One of the questions was "how did you first become aware of our aircraft?" and the answers included "saw it at an air show", "had a dogfight with one" and "heard loud noise, looked up".
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 9:18 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 9:18 AM on April 25 [8 favorites]
the Eagles did not refuse to fly to Mordor because of money; it was because it wasn't their job, and also, do you want a power-mad Eagle Ringlord? I did not think so
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
Plus Joe Walsh is a dick.
posted by night_train at 9:20 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
Plus Joe Walsh is a dick.
posted by night_train at 9:20 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
> I remember a joke checklist from years back about buying an advanced fighter aircraft. One of the questions was "how did you first become aware of our aircraft?" and the answers included "saw it at an air show", "had a dogfight with one" and "heard loud noise, looked up".
Sounds like this one.
posted by genpfault at 9:22 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
Sounds like this one.
posted by genpfault at 9:22 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
Oh, what a brilliant idea. I see your point, brainwane, that this type of checklist is MEANT to communicate a little bit of snark and a dismissive attitude, and tell the person that they're wrong in a very cliched and "basic" way. But I do wish we had a kind of repository of actually serious - though still short - answers to people's objections for some of these topics. For example we have the Geek Feminism wiki as a way to seriously as well as briefly address all of the common bullshit complaints about feminism. It would be so great to have something like that for the housing crisis. Given that we aren't starting out with a predefined correct position on the topic, I'd envision it more as a primer, a collection of basic information and links.
"Ah, you have proposed JUST BUILD GALT'S GULCH as the solution to the housing crisis. Here's a list of common criticisms of your position, including links to some pretty in-depth articles. Here's a list of people/groups who have tried your proposed solution. The most successful effort to implement your solution found that it leads to BEARS INVADING AND OCCUPYING YOUR TERRITORY."
posted by MiraK at 9:22 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
"Ah, you have proposed JUST BUILD GALT'S GULCH as the solution to the housing crisis. Here's a list of common criticisms of your position, including links to some pretty in-depth articles. Here's a list of people/groups who have tried your proposed solution. The most successful effort to implement your solution found that it leads to BEARS INVADING AND OCCUPYING YOUR TERRITORY."
posted by MiraK at 9:22 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
MetaFilter: why don't they just demolish capitalism?
posted by briank at 9:32 AM on April 25 [14 favorites]
posted by briank at 9:32 AM on April 25 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure how one makes the universal declaration that people are expected to do "research" before "opening their trap" - verbal (or written) interaction with others is a way of learning too.
I have never actually encountered somebody using that particular phrasing as a learning opportunity.
posted by Dr. Twist at 9:33 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
I have never actually encountered somebody using that particular phrasing as a learning opportunity.
posted by Dr. Twist at 9:33 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Dr. Twist - Yes you have.
People who use the phrase "why don't they just..." deserve to be shamed. It is 100% proof that they didn't do any research before opening their trap.
...and why do you think they didn't do research before opening their trap? Did you do any research on that?
"Your post advocates a [( ) fascist (X ) shame-based ( ) classist ( ) measured merit] approach to discovering and executing effective systemic problem solving. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work." Sorry, don't have time to write the rest of the form.
posted by amtho at 9:47 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
People who use the phrase "why don't they just..." deserve to be shamed. It is 100% proof that they didn't do any research before opening their trap.
...and why do you think they didn't do research before opening their trap? Did you do any research on that?
"Your post advocates a [( ) fascist (X ) shame-based ( ) classist ( ) measured merit] approach to discovering and executing effective systemic problem solving. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work." Sorry, don't have time to write the rest of the form.
posted by amtho at 9:47 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
My catch all response to that question is, "Honestly, if it were as easy as just doing that, it would already have been done."
posted by Jane the Brown at 9:51 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Jane the Brown at 9:51 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
I gotta make one of these for "Oh, you're unhappily single? Have you thought about...?"
posted by Melismata at 10:04 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 10:04 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
Some favorite glimpses from the checklists I linked to (and I would love links to others):
Here is why it won't work:
( ) It assumes that using the government to force abrogation of private contracts that were freely entered into by the participants won't have any negative side effects
( ) Many network users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Lots of things are polymers, but not everything is a polymer.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
( ) The Constitution
( ) clocks drift across multiple parts of the system, forward and backwards in time
( ) Huge existing software investment in IPv4
( ) The liver and its amazing technicolor CYPs
( ) Timezones are a necessary evil
( ) Inability of two guys with a blog to demand anything
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) A business model built on raising prices of known compounds is on the wrong side of history.
( ) If it can’t be used for piracy, it isn’t decentralized enough
( ) Everybody reading the same story is a feature, not a bug
( ) Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
posted by brainwane at 10:09 AM on April 25 [13 favorites]
Here is why it won't work:
( ) It assumes that using the government to force abrogation of private contracts that were freely entered into by the participants won't have any negative side effects
( ) Many network users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Lots of things are polymers, but not everything is a polymer.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
( ) The Constitution
( ) clocks drift across multiple parts of the system, forward and backwards in time
( ) Huge existing software investment in IPv4
( ) The liver and its amazing technicolor CYPs
( ) Timezones are a necessary evil
( ) Inability of two guys with a blog to demand anything
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) A business model built on raising prices of known compounds is on the wrong side of history.
( ) If it can’t be used for piracy, it isn’t decentralized enough
( ) Everybody reading the same story is a feature, not a bug
( ) Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
posted by brainwane at 10:09 AM on April 25 [13 favorites]
I'm struck with imagining "Why don't they..." coming from the mouth of a child.
And then all these replies.
There *are* child-like people. They're just a (small?) minority compared to all the other ones these replies are addressed to.
posted by aleph at 10:11 AM on April 25
And then all these replies.
There *are* child-like people. They're just a (small?) minority compared to all the other ones these replies are addressed to.
posted by aleph at 10:11 AM on April 25
Plus how would a football team even get over the Mountains of Shadow?
With clear eyes and full hearts.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:37 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
With clear eyes and full hearts.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:37 AM on April 25 [7 favorites]
I'm struck with imagining "Why don't they..." coming from the mouth of a child.
I think most people would approach their response to a question phrased that way coming from a child very differently.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:45 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
I think most people would approach their response to a question phrased that way coming from a child very differently.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:45 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
I've mentioned it before: a law professor once told our class that the answer to any question beginning "why don't they" is usually "money."
Sometimes it's "racism" instead. In America, if something is more expensive than the alternative (see under: means testing, administrative overhead of), that's usually why.
posted by jackbishop at 10:50 AM on April 25 [9 favorites]
Sometimes it's "racism" instead. In America, if something is more expensive than the alternative (see under: means testing, administrative overhead of), that's usually why.
posted by jackbishop at 10:50 AM on April 25 [9 favorites]
Congratulations, you've invented a FAQ that is super annoying to read and just feels bad to receive. I'd honestly like to encourage more you're one of today's 10K thinking when it comes to introducing people to ideas they haven't considered before and this is absolutely one of the worst ways to do that.
posted by Aleyn at 10:59 AM on April 25 [9 favorites]
posted by Aleyn at 10:59 AM on April 25 [9 favorites]
Dr. Twist - Yes you have.
you are correct, I have. but I do still maintain that most of the time it is absolutely asked in an incurious manner, and is almost always suggesting that whatever the problem is, nobody, prior to the "why don't they just..." has thought about the problem at all.
People who use the phrase "why don't they just..." deserve to be shamed. It is 100% proof that they didn't do any research before opening their trap.
...and why do you think they didn't do research before opening their trap? Did you do any research on that?
I dunno, ask the person who posted that.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:59 AM on April 25
you are correct, I have. but I do still maintain that most of the time it is absolutely asked in an incurious manner, and is almost always suggesting that whatever the problem is, nobody, prior to the "why don't they just..." has thought about the problem at all.
People who use the phrase "why don't they just..." deserve to be shamed. It is 100% proof that they didn't do any research before opening their trap.
...and why do you think they didn't do research before opening their trap? Did you do any research on that?
I dunno, ask the person who posted that.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:59 AM on April 25
Congratulations, you've invented a FAQ that is super annoying to read and just feels bad to receive. I'd honestly like to encourage more you're one of today's 10K thinking when it comes to introducing people to ideas they haven't considered before and this is absolutely one of the worst ways to do that.
I think this is super valid, but at least with the spam one, it's really meant for use in contexts where the person it's directed at should know better - I actually don't love housing markets one particularly for this reason. But the key thing to understand with how this happened, is that the same 10 "common sense solutions" being pushed over and over again became exhausting. To be fair, I'm sure people who are experts in economics feel the same about the housing market (something on which I am very much not qualified to comment).
In particular, though, part of the challenge with "just google that", is the first page of results is often blog posts about this weeks pie-in-the-sky idea to fix the problem, and then people pushing back with those same blogs over and over again. Which means addressing everyone individually. Which is, again, exhausting. These sorts of lists are not meant for one on one interactions. They're absolutely meant to step on a bad idea in a forum where it was repeated over and over and over by a new herd of 10k people every single day.
The reason FAQs exist is because they scale in a way that individual humans do not. I'll grant these are a particularly annoying form, but that's meant to be the humour of it, and it's a humour that made sense in the context that they appeared (i.e. technical forums, where everyone involved is operating with some level of investment in that space).
I don't have a good answer, but I do know that addressing everyone individual (as an the XKCD) is absolutely not viable.
posted by jaymzjulian at 11:27 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
I think this is super valid, but at least with the spam one, it's really meant for use in contexts where the person it's directed at should know better - I actually don't love housing markets one particularly for this reason. But the key thing to understand with how this happened, is that the same 10 "common sense solutions" being pushed over and over again became exhausting. To be fair, I'm sure people who are experts in economics feel the same about the housing market (something on which I am very much not qualified to comment).
In particular, though, part of the challenge with "just google that", is the first page of results is often blog posts about this weeks pie-in-the-sky idea to fix the problem, and then people pushing back with those same blogs over and over again. Which means addressing everyone individually. Which is, again, exhausting. These sorts of lists are not meant for one on one interactions. They're absolutely meant to step on a bad idea in a forum where it was repeated over and over and over by a new herd of 10k people every single day.
The reason FAQs exist is because they scale in a way that individual humans do not. I'll grant these are a particularly annoying form, but that's meant to be the humour of it, and it's a humour that made sense in the context that they appeared (i.e. technical forums, where everyone involved is operating with some level of investment in that space).
I don't have a good answer, but I do know that addressing everyone individual (as an the XKCD) is absolutely not viable.
posted by jaymzjulian at 11:27 AM on April 25 [5 favorites]
brainwane: “I am regretting, right now, having used a "why don't they just" joke in any way, shape, or form in the beginning of this post. ”See Figure 1.
P.S. In jest, of course. I have always loved a good checklist joke.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:35 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
I must admit, this is too much pedantic didactics for my taste. And I enjoy quite a bit of pedantic didactics.
posted by credulous at 11:37 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
posted by credulous at 11:37 AM on April 25 [1 favorite]
HL Mencken: "[T]here is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
posted by axiom at 11:41 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
posted by axiom at 11:41 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
It would be interesting to see this approach applied to Plato's 'cave allegory,' with two separate solution rejection checklists.
One would be from the perspective of a person who firmly believes that the shadows before them are the only reality. The checklist would go over the reasons why this idea that "we're all chained up to a wall in a cave and everything we thing is 'reality' is an illusion" is ludicrous nonsense, and even if it was true, all the reasons why it's pointless to even try to escape.
The other would be from the perspective of a person who has managed to escape and is trying to help the others realize their situation and escape their chains. The checklist would cover the most common reasons why it's such a long, arduous, and often unsuccessful struggle to convince them of their plight.
One thing I dig about this is that it's an a way to examine not just the rhetorical/philosophical aspects of the allegory, it also offers an interesting starting point to dive into strengths and weaknesses of the solution rejection checklist structure in general.
posted by chambers at 11:44 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
One would be from the perspective of a person who firmly believes that the shadows before them are the only reality. The checklist would go over the reasons why this idea that "we're all chained up to a wall in a cave and everything we thing is 'reality' is an illusion" is ludicrous nonsense, and even if it was true, all the reasons why it's pointless to even try to escape.
The other would be from the perspective of a person who has managed to escape and is trying to help the others realize their situation and escape their chains. The checklist would cover the most common reasons why it's such a long, arduous, and often unsuccessful struggle to convince them of their plight.
One thing I dig about this is that it's an a way to examine not just the rhetorical/philosophical aspects of the allegory, it also offers an interesting starting point to dive into strengths and weaknesses of the solution rejection checklist structure in general.
posted by chambers at 11:44 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Stuff like this has me quietly thanking Christ I framed my manic stream-of-consciousness about fixing search as “bonghits” in that recent thread. In my meager defense: I did follow up with a “here’s why that won’t work” self-rebuttal the next morning.
Personally I prefer to guide people through what’s wrong with their mental model in the one subject where I have actual expertise (building game systems), but I’m virtually always doing that in the context of mentoring a junior designer. NDAs and a general industry culture of public silence means I’m rarely in a position of being inundated with bad ideas from amateurs; plus seemingly every gaming subreddit or Discord these days has at least a half-dozen hardcore fans with sufficient understanding of game design fundamentals that there just really isn’t a need (to them: I see you and I appreciate you).
posted by Ryvar at 11:50 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Personally I prefer to guide people through what’s wrong with their mental model in the one subject where I have actual expertise (building game systems), but I’m virtually always doing that in the context of mentoring a junior designer. NDAs and a general industry culture of public silence means I’m rarely in a position of being inundated with bad ideas from amateurs; plus seemingly every gaming subreddit or Discord these days has at least a half-dozen hardcore fans with sufficient understanding of game design fundamentals that there just really isn’t a need (to them: I see you and I appreciate you).
posted by Ryvar at 11:50 AM on April 25 [4 favorites]
I admit this does remind me of my mom's usual "why don't you just..." stuff, except then I have to argue with her for 20 minutes that yes, I already tried applying at PG&E, they rejected me instantly, no, I don't know why, no, I'm not going to ask them, obviously I've never worked at a power company and I suspect that's why....
I can see the logic of "yes, we've tried that reasonable thing and it doesn't work, I swear we tried it" as an FAQ, though this one is kind of...harsh.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:40 PM on April 25
I can see the logic of "yes, we've tried that reasonable thing and it doesn't work, I swear we tried it" as an FAQ, though this one is kind of...harsh.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:40 PM on April 25
Personally I prefer to guide people through what’s wrong with their mental model in the one subject where I have actual expertise (building game systems), but I’m virtually always doing that in the context of mentoring a junior designer.
Yes, I think most people are capable of distinguishing social contexts where you're teaching a person and want to encourage them to ask questions and try to think ahead of the instruction (which often leads to incomplete or already-failed solutions!) and, say, Internet forums where someone says, "Why don't they just use self-driving cars for public transit?"
Sometimes it's helpful to point out social contexts in which a proposed action/statement/whatever might be taken differently than intended or have unanticipated/undesired results, and sometimes it seems like people are hunting for fun for that one social context, not considering that most people actually can and do adjust their comments/behavior to be appropriate to an unusual situation.
posted by praemunire at 12:41 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Yes, I think most people are capable of distinguishing social contexts where you're teaching a person and want to encourage them to ask questions and try to think ahead of the instruction (which often leads to incomplete or already-failed solutions!) and, say, Internet forums where someone says, "Why don't they just use self-driving cars for public transit?"
Sometimes it's helpful to point out social contexts in which a proposed action/statement/whatever might be taken differently than intended or have unanticipated/undesired results, and sometimes it seems like people are hunting for fun for that one social context, not considering that most people actually can and do adjust their comments/behavior to be appropriate to an unusual situation.
posted by praemunire at 12:41 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
brainwane, I deeply appreciate your compiled best-of checklist, it is a work of art.
posted by Callisto Prime at 12:50 PM on April 25 [3 favorites]
posted by Callisto Prime at 12:50 PM on April 25 [3 favorites]
There really is a certain class of person who decides they don't like passing by reference, and rather than figure out why it exists, writes a new programming language and a design doc for an operating system built on their new language.
That said, they should really just build more houses. (*ducks*)
posted by kaibutsu at 1:09 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
That said, they should really just build more houses. (*ducks*)
posted by kaibutsu at 1:09 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
should know better
What does this even mean??? If I don't know better, how is that my fault?
posted by amtho at 1:20 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
What does this even mean??? If I don't know better, how is that my fault?
posted by amtho at 1:20 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks): . . . [_] semicolons;
posted by BobTheScientist at 1:31 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
posted by BobTheScientist at 1:31 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Your programming language will fail because:
( ) JavaScript has won, in the future there is only JavaScript, stop fighting and learn to love JavaScript
( ) Back in the day we wrote C and we liked it and if you're worried about memory bugs then consider being a better programmer
( ) In this Medium article I will try to explain monads with a series of increasingly desperate metaphors
( ) Rust.
posted by Pyry at 1:49 PM on April 25 [8 favorites]
( ) JavaScript has won, in the future there is only JavaScript, stop fighting and learn to love JavaScript
( ) Back in the day we wrote C and we liked it and if you're worried about memory bugs then consider being a better programmer
( ) In this Medium article I will try to explain monads with a series of increasingly desperate metaphors
( ) Rust.
posted by Pyry at 1:49 PM on April 25 [8 favorites]
Closely related to the "why don't they just do X" question is the "everyone should just do X" declaration which irks me even more. The former at least allows for a "just asking questions" fig leaf while the latter is more of a "I have the answer" statement (though in practice, there's probably not really a big distinction between the two). I always point out that saying that "everyone should just do X" isn't actually a solution to the problem. It's a desired end-state that may (or may not) solve the problem. It's not a plan or methodology or even a theory for attaining that end-state. It's merely a wish that everyone would suddenly do something they weren't already doing in order to achieve the proposer's goal.
posted by mhum at 2:48 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
posted by mhum at 2:48 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
You decided not to post a comment because:
(x) mhum just said exactly what you were going to.
posted by nickmark at 2:55 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
(x) mhum just said exactly what you were going to.
posted by nickmark at 2:55 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
→
posted by scruss at 3:15 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Paraphrased from a tumblr post I once saw and cannot find again
If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not [sic] time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.— (source)
posted by scruss at 3:15 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Another relevant xkcd.
I can suggest a reason that folks might resort to this harsh (and it is harsh) mode of correcting for this: "why don't Those People just" often ends in something that reveals the speaker's contempt for and/or lack of knowledge of Those People and (especially) the constraints they labor under.
As a scholarly communication librarian, I had this happen endlessly while talking with faculty about how broken scholarly communication is. Way too many of them immediately leapt to making it a Librarian Problem with absolute fatuities such as (but not limited to) "Well, why don't librarians just band together to increase their purchasing power?"
And I could not answer "You absolute FUCKWIT, do you think we are BRAIN-DEAD? We are not. We have DONE THIS for DECADES and it is called a CONSORTIUM and it is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE at this point." I mean, I will actually happily explain (and have explained) to less-assholish faculty why consortia were only a band-aid -- publishers simply raised their prices until they were too high for consortia too -- but the notion not only that we hadn't done this but were unable to have thought of it was just. Vastly ignorant and vastly insulting.
posted by humbug at 3:20 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
I can suggest a reason that folks might resort to this harsh (and it is harsh) mode of correcting for this: "why don't Those People just" often ends in something that reveals the speaker's contempt for and/or lack of knowledge of Those People and (especially) the constraints they labor under.
As a scholarly communication librarian, I had this happen endlessly while talking with faculty about how broken scholarly communication is. Way too many of them immediately leapt to making it a Librarian Problem with absolute fatuities such as (but not limited to) "Well, why don't librarians just band together to increase their purchasing power?"
And I could not answer "You absolute FUCKWIT, do you think we are BRAIN-DEAD? We are not. We have DONE THIS for DECADES and it is called a CONSORTIUM and it is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE at this point." I mean, I will actually happily explain (and have explained) to less-assholish faculty why consortia were only a band-aid -- publishers simply raised their prices until they were too high for consortia too -- but the notion not only that we hadn't done this but were unable to have thought of it was just. Vastly ignorant and vastly insulting.
posted by humbug at 3:20 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
My friend Zack wrote one a few years back:
Your post advocates aposted by brainwane at 3:31 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
□ software □ hardware □ cognitive □ two-factor □ other ___________
universal replacement for passwords.....
Seeing the calendar reform one reminds me that there is a sort of transformation one can apply to turn a "falsehoods [kinds of people] believe about [topic]" list into a rejection checklist, and vice versa.
posted by brainwane at 3:34 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by brainwane at 3:34 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
In general, I'm sympathetic to reminding people expertise is a thing and that, if they think they've an easy solution to a meaningful problem, it's most likely a sign that they don't understand the problem well enough. This is in fact a good heuristic: Research something at least until you understand why your solution hasn't been implemented.
I'm not sure this approach needed to be meme-ified though. The actual point is that things are complicated and require knowledge and thought, the effect of a checklist can backfire the same way logical fallacies do: People who don't know much about a topic are now empowered to go and pick some objections in the confidence they will sound smart.
And in fact the one I know about--pharmaceuticals--includes some objections that, if anyone said them with a straight face, would convince me that they were ignorant, arguing in bad faith, or both. In fact, if I encountered it in isolation I'd assume the point would be to parody the way lazy managers kill ideas.
(Again, I'm quite sympathetic with the general message. I know @brainwane is a Dan Davies reader; one of his observations was that it's true that it's easier to tear down than build up, but the obvious corollary is not that the builder-uppers are doing noble work and should be listened to, it's that the tearer-downers are more likely to be correct.)
posted by mark k at 6:22 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure this approach needed to be meme-ified though. The actual point is that things are complicated and require knowledge and thought, the effect of a checklist can backfire the same way logical fallacies do: People who don't know much about a topic are now empowered to go and pick some objections in the confidence they will sound smart.
And in fact the one I know about--pharmaceuticals--includes some objections that, if anyone said them with a straight face, would convince me that they were ignorant, arguing in bad faith, or both. In fact, if I encountered it in isolation I'd assume the point would be to parody the way lazy managers kill ideas.
(Again, I'm quite sympathetic with the general message. I know @brainwane is a Dan Davies reader; one of his observations was that it's true that it's easier to tear down than build up, but the obvious corollary is not that the builder-uppers are doing noble work and should be listened to, it's that the tearer-downers are more likely to be correct.)
posted by mark k at 6:22 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
I’ve replaced “why don’t you just X” with “is there a reason not to X?” in order to signal my awareness that there’s probably a reason I don’t understand yet for why X isn’t a solution (and that I want to better understand the problem).
posted by autopilot at 6:31 PM on April 25 [6 favorites]
posted by autopilot at 6:31 PM on April 25 [6 favorites]
In fact, if I encountered it in isolation I'd assume the point would be to parody the way lazy managers kill ideas.
Some of these seem like they actually are parodies of common dismissals as much as they are parodies of low-hanging ideas. Like some of the programming ones include objections representing opposing “factions” of language design or whatever.
posted by atoxyl at 7:14 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Some of these seem like they actually are parodies of common dismissals as much as they are parodies of low-hanging ideas. Like some of the programming ones include objections representing opposing “factions” of language design or whatever.
posted by atoxyl at 7:14 PM on April 25 [1 favorite]
Similar to @atoxyl’s take, the drug discovery one is kind of meta. People who work in the author’s area of drug discovery (big data/ML/AI/computational biology from a comp sci or engineering background and working in startups) would typically have this sort of snark/banter/sneer at newbies to their field, thinking they understand what is happening. However people working any one subfield of the pharmaceutical industry have blind spots about the industry and drug discovery process at large. In my view his checklist misses several tricks regarding the wider pharmaceutical industry ecosystem as well as being incorrect or misleading in several places.
Maybe there’s a “you propose a checklist but your checklist fails because” checklist somewhere behind all this.
I recently came across the concept of a “wicked problem” : a problem that is ambiguous and never-ending, that isn’t ever really solved. (Drug discovery certainly has these characteristics.) Several of these checklists seem to address problems of this nature, attempting to pin down so few aspects of the “wicked problem” that they end up betraying the problem itself.
I will say though that “If you had that many GPUs, it would have better ROI to just mine cryptos” did make me laugh.
posted by Erinaceus europaeus at 11:06 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Maybe there’s a “you propose a checklist but your checklist fails because” checklist somewhere behind all this.
I recently came across the concept of a “wicked problem” : a problem that is ambiguous and never-ending, that isn’t ever really solved. (Drug discovery certainly has these characteristics.) Several of these checklists seem to address problems of this nature, attempting to pin down so few aspects of the “wicked problem” that they end up betraying the problem itself.
I will say though that “If you had that many GPUs, it would have better ROI to just mine cryptos” did make me laugh.
posted by Erinaceus europaeus at 11:06 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
This is where I'm reminded of Harry Shearer's definition of an expert: a talkative fellow from out of town.
My dad used to say: an ex is a has-been, a spurt is a drip under pressure.
I suppose it does lack something in poetry but it's reasonably descriptive.
posted by deadwax at 4:04 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
My dad used to say: an ex is a has-been, a spurt is a drip under pressure.
I suppose it does lack something in poetry but it's reasonably descriptive.
posted by deadwax at 4:04 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
Robert Heinlein's form letter to fans.
MetaFilter: Please do not write to me again.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:12 AM on April 26 [4 favorites]
MetaFilter: Please do not write to me again.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:12 AM on April 26 [4 favorites]
« Older The Portugal Model for Addressing the Overdose... | Policymakers in other cities can learn from... Newer »
And the "creating new programming languages" link should probably go here.
posted by genpfault at 7:48 AM on April 25 [2 favorites]