Audience-specific arguments are definitely a good way to compartmentalize complexity. So niche communities are covered more effectively, but which argument should CNN choose? MSNBC? Other mainstream news sources with large audiences?
> But also you're complexifying my argument.
Assume good faith, I'm not trying to argue against you, but reach a novel conclusion by discussing with you. This is why my reply began with "I don't know".
> But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't.
I don't assume a given individual is dumb, and I reject such a generalized classification. Very intelligent people can have extremely simple perspectives about issues outside of their expertise. Simplicity/complexity is not strictly related to intelligence. It's far more a function of time and available energy one has to spend learning about an issue. I'd prefer to dispense with the metric of intelligence altogether and focus on reduction of wasted complexity.
So the complexity is for people in the know. The strategy is to pick the topic that matters most to your audience. That's why I said that if you dislike any singular one of the problems it is enough to be against the system. If you don't know your audience, don't pigeonhole your argument. That's all I'm saying here. Doesn't need to be complex, despite the issue being so. But also you're complexifying my argument.
I would also argue that part of the reason we've gotten to this point is because we try to hide complexity from people. People are both smarter and dumber than you think. But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't.
It's not arguing that one is more or less complex than the other. It's saying that everything in modern life is complex, and simply saying "X is complex" isn't a sufficient basis to make a decision about the relative merits of X and Y.
There is complexity that obscures and complexity that enlightens. Some concepts can only be conveyed adequately by using intricately detailed explanations. The same is true for simplicity -- too much simplification and a discussion devolves into a battle against strawmen. Officials are guilty of this as well.
Lamenting about complexity just for the sake of lamenting about complexity and then adding a few potshots at Google/FB/etc. doesn't exactly make for a thought-provoking, nuanced, or interesting argument, though
There might be some sort of cognitive bias going on here. But, I think the greater driver is more "political."
Complexity creates opportunities for fiefs, little areas only one person understands.
I think we don't recognize what drives a good portion of people, in the tech industry. People pretend to, and are often expected to understand more than they do. Complexity helps us when reporting or manage (up and down). It's harder to grill you, challenge you or commit you to things when everything is complex. Complex requires more people, which is the main scorecard for corporate success.
It's also just unintuitive that simple is harder and better than complicated. Even if you get it, someone else won't.
> But also you're complexifying my argument.
Assume good faith, I'm not trying to argue against you, but reach a novel conclusion by discussing with you. This is why my reply began with "I don't know".
> But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't.
I don't assume a given individual is dumb, and I reject such a generalized classification. Very intelligent people can have extremely simple perspectives about issues outside of their expertise. Simplicity/complexity is not strictly related to intelligence. It's far more a function of time and available energy one has to spend learning about an issue. I'd prefer to dispense with the metric of intelligence altogether and focus on reduction of wasted complexity.
reply