The Front

[sus]

Different scope re-science and scientism. We invented a 3 letter word to get at the source of all things. We’re not that complex

The evolving relationship between telephone/wifi networks, chemical rewards and dosing mechanisms as apps are easier to grasp, surely

If people disregard it,

In theory, sure. But if your three-letter word is "bit," we are nowhere near the ability to reduce/model biological brains or behavior to pure cybernetic information flow.

 

[Clinamenic]

Behavior psychology certainly isn't a hard science, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't disqualify it from yielding actionable insights for industry applications.

 

[sus]

Behavior psychology certainly isn't a hard science, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't disqualify it from yielding actionable insights for industry applications.

Not necessarily, however, it is also the case that it hasn't yielded actionable insights for industry applications.

 

[Clinamenic]

In theory, sure. But if your three-letter word is "bit," my understanding is we are nowhere close to reducing biological brains/function to the pure cybernetic models of information.

I also think our notions of cybernetic systems and logic networks don't map neatly enough onto what we observe experimentally re: brain structure. But I agree that neuropsychology is far from being a hard science.

 

[WashYourHands]

In theory, sure. But if your three-letter word is "bit," my understanding is we are nowhere close to reducing biological brains/function to the pure cybernetic models of information.

the 3 letter word is god, may as well be dog

rudimentary brain function is the reptile point up thread and you still missed it, ya know, all the archaic architecture your conscious decision making is underpinned by

it can be understood by my kids who are raising hell, so, over to you

 

[sus]

Ahaha, that's funny substituting God for bit

 

[Clinamenic]

Not necessarily, however, it is also the case that it hasn't yielded actionable insights for industry applications.

I don't have any studies at hand here, but it seems obvious to me that even simple behavioral observations can factor into optimizing the user experience of a variety of platforms. And I also wouldn't underestimate these platform engineers so much as to assume they don't take into account such findings.

If I was in a position of executive authority in designing and optimizing a social media platform, I would readily turn to behavior psychology, insofar as the science can be experimentally framed so as to yield actionable findings.

From graphic layout to color contrast and other such aesthetic features, I'd imagine it would be relatively straightforward to gauge the quality of a user's experience, in terms of accessibility and pleasantness, and I would also imagine such a metric would correlate non-trivially with things like user retention, user engagement, session length, etc, depending on the platform. A sort of experiencial feng shui.

 

[Clinamenic]

And the findings don't need to be absolute, just pertinent and consistent enough to rely on.

 

[WashYourHands]

Ahaha, that's funny substituting God for bit

ever trained a dog? any pet?

 

[Clinamenic]

And the findings don't need to be absolute, just pertinent and consistent enough to rely on.

And yet, plenty of people treat data like it is absolute insight, when really such an understanding seems misguided. Data can be cherrypicked, and can be procured by processes with blindspots. Even so, it can be useful to certain ends, such as optimizing a user's experience.

 

[Clinamenic]

If we understand behavioral science in general as the study of responses to stimuli, including decisions made, I really don't think it's that outrageous to acknowledge how much potential such science has for improving a product or service. I think the only things that are new, today, are the volumes of data and the robustness of data analytics techniques, e.g. machine learning.

 

[WashYourHands]

@suspended You’re arguing that your more discerning versions of reward mechanisms don’t exist due to the mysteries of consciousness essentially, when you’re the main gaming driver on the forum and mildly obsessed about leaderboard stats

Check yourself, the front goes by another name = neck

 

[sus]

I'm not arguing reward mechanisms don't alter behavior, but we've known this, and intentionally designed reward mechanisms, as long as human beings have lived in groups.

 

[WashYourHands]

And they evolve but you still train a dog with treats

People have been looking at objects in limbs before we even had thumbs. Material into material culture requires design and therein lies the rub

Dopamine sweet spots are digital as well as biological now. That is relatively new. Pre-internet psyche is all of history up until fairly recently and digital acid can corrode cultural roots, even foolish ones about Protestant work ethic

 

[luka]

what do you think the substance of this disagreement is? i dont think there is any substance, particularly. but perhaps it resides in the word dopamine alone.

 

[luka]

and, relatedly, in a fairly subtle conflict between a model of conditioned behaviour on the one hand and the naive or natural, we do things cos we like them model on the other

 

[linebaugh]

I havent read this argument but seeing as gus went right past my very reasonable and common sense retort he's looking to grind an axe

 

[WashYourHands]

@no-one The manipulation of consent.....duhduhdUH

If I want a cornetto it’s probably not because they’re delicious, they’re not, how else might the interaction function?

Sugar can come as bits. Build the architecture on it. Build the likes. Build the front

A confidence trick to tech’s hubris

 

[luka]

what?

 

[luka]

ok, i think i've decoded it. i think youre agreeing with me.