Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by OhMeadhbh 90 days ago
I'm just delighted that someone else read Feyerabend, Popper and Kuhn. I would add Giddens and even Graeber to that list, both are disruptive in their own way. About 25 years ago I adopted anthropology as a lens to investigate behaviour of tech companies and teams. It's not let me down.

The most important thing I got from Feyerabend, Graeber and Sylvia Ashton-Warner was the invitation to colour outside the lines (though few but my mother would suspect Ashton-Warner of anarchic thought...)

I just finished reading Lowey's autobiography "Never Leave Well Enough Alone." A ripping yarn if you're hip to mid-century descriptions of design, martinis and trains. Lowey's most famous slogan (repeated in design schools everywhere) is MAYA : Most Advanced Yet Accessible. In other words... as a designer, you have to make something the client can recognize as a solution to their problems but advanced enough to justify the expense of upgrading.

I bring it up because I fear we have confused the two... being accessible and being advanced. While I'm happy to point out some of the advantages of AI, I should also mention we're letting the tail wag the dog. We've spent fourty-fifty years with a model of technology growth requiring increasingly greater returns on falling marginal real returns.

The difference between the benefit of technology between 1940 and 1950 was immense. Similar for the increased benefit brought about by the increase from 1950 through 1960. But the benefits between 2016 and 2026 are less about productivity improvements and more about finding more people to borrow money from.

What if we have eaten all the low-hanging worker-productivity fruit?

What if every increase in worker productivity requires increasingly greater capital investment and that investment yields increasingly smaller margins?

Is it time to reconsider Schumacher's argument in "Small is Beautiful" ? Is it time to work smarter rather than invest bigger?

All these thoughts are offered without evidence, but also without a foregone conclusion of their outcome.

I will be at the library, BLS website and local startup office collecting data.

1 comments

I have added the two works mentioned in the post by Kuhn and Fayerabend to my reading list. I have read some of Greabers work and while idealistic/unrealistic in some parts I really like the antidote to "popular" thoughts/theory. Can you recommend other books/works? I have "Small is Beautiful" on my reading list already. I wanted to read it after Conviviality, but never got to it after I abandoned Conviviality - but your mention of it moved it up my list.
"Small is Beautiful" is sort of a difficult read. I picked up a copy of "Small Is Beautiful in the 21st Century: The legacy of E.F. Schumacher" by his daughter Diana Schumacher. It hits all the main points while being a little better organized.

I went a little nuts with modern anthropology and absolutely adore Giddens. He was actually the person I was visiting in London when I bumped into Graber. "The Consequences of Modernity" is a bit dense and filled with jargon, but I love it.

There was another post I commented on and mentioned "Everything Was Forever Until It Was No More," and while it's not a general-purpose discussion of how we model social systems, it is a great read. It's where the word "HyperNormalization" comes from and tells the story of the last generation of soviet citizens who noticed things weren't working too well, but grew up in a world where there were no alternatives to state bureaucracy and politics.

I also read a fair amount about pedagogy since I'm interested in structured systems of developing denotational systems for modeling human knowledge with the objective of communicating said knowledge. I love Sylvia Ashton-Warner. She wrote an autobiography called "Teacher" that's worth a read. I hung out with Seymour Papert and Cindi Solomon when I was a kid, so I have to mention Mindstorms. And Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" has some interesting bits if you can handle the 70s communista jargon. It's not full-on marxist, but if you're sensitive to such things, it can be distracting. But... what they all have in common is a framework for how to communicate (potentially) complex models and knowledge maps.

Read everything you can find by Jung, McLuhan and Claude Levi-Strauss.

"Eros and Magic in the Reniassance" by Ioan Cuilianu. Then read it again because it's hard to figure out what you just read when you only read it once.

For fun I've read some of the articles and books by Rory Sutherland.