[bumby]

I'm sorry, I'm not following. I'm assuming someone would want something because they feel like it's a solution to their problem. In this case, I'm saying I think software is the wrong "solution" because it just treats the symptom (get me out of this obligation) and not the underlying cause (provide psychological trust). Did you interpret the sentence differently?

[Dylan16807]

They want the supposed benefit. That doesn't mean they think the mechanism is correct, or even that any mechanism could actually do it in a non-abstract way.

[bumby]

That's kinda the point of the last sentence in the my original comment. People may desire an app that optimizes their ability to connect with drug dealers. It's certainly possible from a technical standpoint. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is probably not a good idea because those interactions are exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of the guilt in the first place.

Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the software solution exists, just that that desire for such an app may be misplaced.

[Dylan16807]

> Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is probably not a good idea because those interactions are exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of the guilt in the first place.

The interactions of possibly cancelling things? I don't know about that. And expecially the interactions of cancelling things both people want to cancel? That doesn't seem notably trust-buildy to me.

> Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the software solution exists, just that that desire for such an app may be misplaced.

And I'm saying the desire isn't specifically for an app, and shouldn't have given you that impression that the poster thought software was "the right lever" in the first place.

[bumby]

>The interactions of possibly cancelling things?

Yes. Precisely because it causes one to actively communicate why. That’s what builds trust. As other commenters have noted, just agreeing to cancel still leaves one wondering why. Is it because they have social anxiety and I invited them to a black tie dinner? Or is it because they think I’m pompous because I enjoy formal gatherings? Did I agree because I think they are socially inept or because I think the party would be lame? You’ll never know and that uncertainty breeds distrust. Trust and certainty are intertwined when it comes to human social interactions.

>the desire isn’t specifically for an app

I mean, the OP literally said there was a want for an app. Now maybe they really meant there is a “want for reduced friction in canceling social interactions” but I’m saying psychological trust is a better way of reducing that friction, not off-loading it to faceless technology. To my original point, there are some things tech is great for. I’m not sure managing social interactions that have evolved over eons and are one of a few species-defining traits is one of them.

Imagine a different scenario like communicating what projects you want to lead at work. One organization just matches your requests with your bosses through an intermediary. When you don’t get the projects you want, you’re left wondering…is it because the boss thinks you’re not competent? Is it because someone else has a unique skill set to lead instead? Is it nepotism? Bribery? The other org institutes an open dialogue where your boss explains the exact rationale behind each assignment. Which do you think is managing their relationships more effectively?