Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
I have been accused in the past of ‘over-simplifying’. My usual response is: “no, I do not over-simplify — you over-complicate”. Which only proves that everything is relative.

However, basic concepts our lives depend on are very simple. Birth, death, procreation, family, food, clothing, shelter, co-operation, competition, love, hate, -- you know what I mean.

It is possible to build a very complex civilization on top of our simple basic needs, but NOTHING will change our basic needs for survival.

Often in History people have lost sight of the basic necessities and allowed the self-created complexity of their human constructs to destroy their simple needs. Needs that determine whether we live or die, whether we are happy or miserable.

On the other hand, often I find myself irritated by simplistic arguments when debating very complex issues. The “Adversarial ‘Justice’ System” thread is a good example.

I think this curious and uniquely human (animals don’t do it) contradiction deserves a thread of its own. I would like to get some feedback from people on where we should draw the line between Over-simplification and Over-complication?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
19-10-2011, 03:23 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
I'm not sure that there is a definitively 'best' place to draw the line. Like you said, it's all relative.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2011, 06:28 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
I'm a naive philosopher. Philosophy did not become necessary in the local universe until 2008. I was forty...

Ain't nothing wrong with naive philosophy when this idiot comes up with a monsterpiece: Point-object truth. A mathematical concept that uses the primitive form of the scientific method to build concept in mind using "truth in word" instead of "definition of word."

"Make it simpler" is the new "keep it simple." I got a working conceptual design in mind of "vector atheism;" I got a distillate of simplicity forming on my non-forum (writing up concept in differing degrees of complexity keeps the complexity out of your head - your "point-object truth."

That other thread; I figure a noob must be Something before being Anything, thus I figure often on being ignored; this being the exception as the thread is fresh and a question was asked.

I just have no idea what kind of background you have in law or with law... and I have seen too much bs in my life. I could say my whole life reduces to this tao: Justice = Morality

In this case, I have a degree of expertise mostly lost from humanity - witchcraft. Have you ever heard "Name=Power?" (Witches know this kinda thing) Every "thing" is Named; the more concrete, widespread, common the thing - the more power is drawn by its name. A "thing" that is abstract, local, and uncommon - the more power is repelled by its name.

Consider: Faith. I'm a witch, write that word with authority; while the atheists break out the Circle-As... "back! biohazard!" If I keep doing it, it will literally make me non-existent.

Now consider: Law. You got the same problem I do? "A simple metaphysical truth" seems like a decent definition for "the Name of Law;" but how many identities shelter under that umbrella? Cops, Courts, Philosophy, Industry, Constitution, and Statute - at the very least - and they're entangled like six strange attractors...

If the word ain't Morality, then the word is Revolution - that's what I'm thinking.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-10-2011, 07:00 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
- Albert Einstein

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-10-2011, 09:39 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
When talking with a theist, I sometimes feel like I have to strip everything away or they just don't get it.
I know I over-complicate things when trying to reason out my decisions... Almost as if I'm trying to convince myself. I feel like I need to get all aspects covered.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 06:37 AM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
Some of the best inventions that help people are sometimes the most simplest.

There hard to see though because of complications :/

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 08:22 AM
 
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
I think we should draw the line between structural elements and details of the structure.

Structural elements are usually very simple. Look at the structural design of a building, a boat, an airplane, a scientific theory, a social organization.

If you design it well, all of these will be safe, solid, reliable, not falling to pieces at the first hard test.

Once you have these structural elements designed and built properly, then you can erect an edifice on top, as complicated as you want to make it.

The most common (and deadly) mistake people make is ignoring or cheaping out on the structural elements. Like the bulkheads in the Titanic that did not go all the way up, so the water could flood all the compartments and sink the ship.

In social organizations, it is even worse because it is not designed at all, as far as the structural elements are concerned. It just evolved, historically, with every new layer heaped on top of the previous one until we arrived at this totally disfigured monster we live in now, with all the contradictions and stresses and counteracting forces tearing it apart.

When I make an observation about some aspect of our social problems, I always concentrate first on the structural elements. Like a good, honest and conscientious repair-man who is called out to fix a problem in the plumbing, I have to point out to the owner that the fundamental problem goes all the way back to the basement.

That is why I tried to explain, on the “Adversarial ‘Justice’ System” thread that society needs a fundamental structural change (as opposed to mucking around with the result of a basic design flaw) if we want to solve our problems. This suggestion was totally missed and ignored by the attackers of the suggestion. This is the context in which my proposal for an alternative was to be understood (See the "Proposal for a New Social Contract" thread).

However, many people don’t like to think in terms of basic principles because either they did not have scientific/engineering training, or don’t know how to apply the same principles to social problems.

One would think that common sense should be enough to figure it out, and it does work admirably well for many non-scientists here on this board, but we always have those who can not look outside the box and will start thinking about the details of the existing mess, instead of stepping back and examining the foundations.

In the worst case (and I have seen it many times) some people over-complicate what should be simple and over-simplify what should be complex! Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
20-10-2011, 12:17 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
For many, it's so easier to see and deal with the messy details first because they seem so daunting, when they are in fact trivial aspects of the underlying issue. It's easy to find ourselves debating minutia and thinking there will be an eventual point. But it's a pointless trap begging for attention; when do you stop peeling an onion? When you get to the useful part? Did you really need to peel the onion at all, can't you just cut it and weed out the unusable along the way? I'm guilty of unnecessarily peeling that onion, when I know perspective and reason could have saved a massive amount of time. I should just cut to the chase, more often. Exclamation

Idea I hadn't seen it, but I'll try to get to "Proposal for a New Social Contract" -sounds like something I have been considering for quite some time. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 02:56 PM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
(20-10-2011 08:22 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  I think we

Wow! There's a design flaw in structure if I ever seen one! Big Grin

We're good. I do conceptual engineering, so I'm just looking at this structure in isolation. There ain't no we in atheism, because structure is built to tolerance, not from tolerance. I'm intolerant. From experience, I have learned that conceptual engineering is straight witchcraft to many...

Yeah, I'm a witch. You know what else I know? I know that you - yeah, you - are supposed to burn witches at the stake... Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2011, 06:03 AM
RE: Over-simplify vs. Over-complicate
Is this really that hard to figure out?
here's how I look at it.
I f something would benifit from being made more simple, simplify it. If something would benefit form having complexity, make it more complex. If it doesn't matter than leave it be.
Are we not making this more complicated when it doesn't need to be? Would this thread not benefit from simple short clear answers that can be understood by all so they to can understand the complexities of simplification?............I'm a hipocrite.

NEW AND IMPROVED!
Twice the anger, Half the space!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hamata k's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: