There are lots of open social science-ish problems (e.g., optimal employee management, clinical psychology, effective political organizing, child raising). I expect that 50-100 years from now experts will have a much better grasp of the best responses to these problems, roughly in parallel to how experts have a better grasp of heart surgery than they did 50 years ago. Likewise, I expect public understanding of the solutions will be at the level of today’s public understanding of heart surgery—the average reader of the New York Times knows the basics of what it is, why you’d do it, and has a very basic idea of problems that could arise (i.e. knows organ rejection is possible).
Even time I go to renew my vehicle registration or renew my driver’s license, the facility is better streamlined. That’s the result of social science research. I just think we’ll keep getting better at it, so more and more will be accepted at the level of traditional medicine. That’s not to say that mindkilling won’t continue to be a huge risk in those fields.
Even time I go to renew my vehicle registration or renew my driver’s license, the facility is better streamlined. That’s the result of social science research.
Are you sure? Bureaucratic record keeping is almost the most inherently computerizable, networkable, software-automatible task I can imagine, and as it happens we have been making some incredible strides in computers, networking, and software for the past few decades...
The advances in queuing people efficiently are not a product of advancements in software or hardware. In other words, I think of the insights that led to the creation of Disney’s Fastpass as social science advancements.
There are lots of open social science-ish problems (e.g., optimal employee management, clinical psychology, effective political organizing, child raising). I expect that 50-100 years from now experts will have a much better grasp of the best responses to these problems, roughly in parallel to how experts have a better grasp of heart surgery than they did 50 years ago. Likewise, I expect public understanding of the solutions will be at the level of today’s public understanding of heart surgery—the average reader of the New York Times knows the basics of what it is, why you’d do it, and has a very basic idea of problems that could arise (i.e. knows organ rejection is possible).
I’m not sure, attempts to solve social science-ish problems tend to get derailed by status signalling in ways that heart surgery does not.
Even time I go to renew my vehicle registration or renew my driver’s license, the facility is better streamlined. That’s the result of social science research. I just think we’ll keep getting better at it, so more and more will be accepted at the level of traditional medicine. That’s not to say that mindkilling won’t continue to be a huge risk in those fields.
Are you sure? Bureaucratic record keeping is almost the most inherently computerizable, networkable, software-automatible task I can imagine, and as it happens we have been making some incredible strides in computers, networking, and software for the past few decades...
The advances in queuing people efficiently are not a product of advancements in software or hardware. In other words, I think of the insights that led to the creation of Disney’s Fastpass as social science advancements.