The thing is, historically we never really had much respect for complexity.
> We talk about complex subjects all the time. Medicine, politics, economics, sociology, morality and more
For our entire history we have being talking about complex subjects we barely understood and, like proud primates, we were always very vocal and cocksure about our view points.
We experienced two cultural revolutions, first in the world of ancient Greece, subsequently in the modern era of scientific enlightenment. One can think of the emergent scientific method as effectively learning to respect complexity. Being humble about assertions that cannot be validated again and again, in different conditions, by different parties etc.
The tangible result of this new trait (respecting complexity) was pretty amazing. But only for a precious few domains. Our default mode, being 100% sure about things we have little clue about (who needs hallucinating AI when you've got humans), continues to be the prevalent one.
Whats worse, we now have what has been called "the pretence of knowledge" [1]. We know that real knowledge is powerful, so why not pretend we have it when we actually don't? This leads to a random mix of (typically self-serving) opinions coupled to the superficial use of scientific tools. A pathology most visible precisely in the above list of really complex topics.
The risk is that as the challenges of our own complex societies mount, we will undo also what we have achieved, and effectively go back to become stochastic parrots, unhinged from complex reality.
In academia, respect for complexity still exists, but industries prioritize simplicity to enable mass production, reduce costs, and make things easier for people to understand, remember, and use. That’s why logos are becoming flat, with simple shapes and colors, buildings are often bland rectangular boxes, and apps have fewer texts and buttons on each screen.
As with almost everything, we need to find a balance between simplicity and complexity.
Complexity is important when a subject at is core is complex, I'm mostly against complexity for the sake of complexity. Too many subjects are getting complex for the sake of it, or due to organic development.
There is an even greater beauty than complexity when very complex subjects can be reduced to simpler ones without losing their power, it requires a greater understanding of complexity than what is usually seen.
As an illustrative example : QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Feynman
I largely agree with this post except for the reference to "juvenoia". Case in point: the new US administration doesn't contain a lot of terribly young people, but they have also thoroughly lost the respect for complexity. All those "deep state" bureaucrats who at best don't seem to do anything useful and at worst dare to contradict you? Fire them all!
Complexity has always been less respected the more it is separated from the experiences of the average person; or more personally, your own experiences. Unfortunately, that's the very nature of complexity itself. Dependencies increase instead of decrease in the hopes of scaling, saving time and money, or even providing a slightly better product. As positive as those efforts sound, they also make the failure cases worse.
The only people to respect with regards to complexity are those dealing with inherent complexity -- especially when they're building more digestible abstractions, and those working to reduce complexity due to having a substantial understand of it. It can be rather difficult to distinguish between inherent complexity and incidental complexity though.
openrisk ·1 hours ago
> We talk about complex subjects all the time. Medicine, politics, economics, sociology, morality and more
For our entire history we have being talking about complex subjects we barely understood and, like proud primates, we were always very vocal and cocksure about our view points.
We experienced two cultural revolutions, first in the world of ancient Greece, subsequently in the modern era of scientific enlightenment. One can think of the emergent scientific method as effectively learning to respect complexity. Being humble about assertions that cannot be validated again and again, in different conditions, by different parties etc.
The tangible result of this new trait (respecting complexity) was pretty amazing. But only for a precious few domains. Our default mode, being 100% sure about things we have little clue about (who needs hallucinating AI when you've got humans), continues to be the prevalent one.
Whats worse, we now have what has been called "the pretence of knowledge" [1]. We know that real knowledge is powerful, so why not pretend we have it when we actually don't? This leads to a random mix of (typically self-serving) opinions coupled to the superficial use of scientific tools. A pathology most visible precisely in the above list of really complex topics.
The risk is that as the challenges of our own complex societies mount, we will undo also what we have achieved, and effectively go back to become stochastic parrots, unhinged from complex reality.
[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hay...
Show replies
DaveMcMartin ·25 minutes ago
As with almost everything, we need to find a balance between simplicity and complexity.
Show replies
somethingsome ·1 hours ago
There is an even greater beauty than complexity when very complex subjects can be reduced to simpler ones without losing their power, it requires a greater understanding of complexity than what is usually seen.
As an illustrative example : QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Feynman
rob74 ·2 hours ago
Show replies
BwackNinja ·2 hours ago
The only people to respect with regards to complexity are those dealing with inherent complexity -- especially when they're building more digestible abstractions, and those working to reduce complexity due to having a substantial understand of it. It can be rather difficult to distinguish between inherent complexity and incidental complexity though.