Just Add Sharks!

Trade-offs are common on system design. You want to upgrade the system in one way, but by doing so you degrade it in another.

This often leads to a conundrum of accessibility. You want a system to be functional and accessible to everyone – but sometimes modifications that will make a system accessible to new users can degrade the system for existing users. Over several years Blizzard iterated on the design of the Starcraft 2 multiplayer ladder and it went from a rather harsh “You lost. It was your fault. Git good” system to one that was much more gentle on new players. Some of the veteran players balked at these changes – they were into the masochism of the experience. But ultimately things worked out because the fundamentals of the game remained.

Another twist to this conundrum is when you have different population sizes. If you have a large marjority of people who are benefitting from the system it’s hard to argue that the system should be changed to benefit a small minority. If you change the rules of a basketball game so that the kid in the wheelchair can play it you are degrading the experience for the able-bodied players. The

The problem here is one of deontology vs relativism. Noticing minorities, caring for minorities, including minorities – these are categorical imperatives. But is difficult to do so at a systems level.

I have a friend who’s child is autistic. She wants him to attend Mormon church services – which often require children to sit still for three hours without much stimulation. Anyone who has studied the challenges autistic children and adults face will tell you flat out that such a thing is impossible. The system is designed in such a way that autistic children cannot benefit from it. She attends a ward of 300+ people. Should the services that benefit all these people change for her single child?

The other consideration is that this argument is used as an excuse by an majority to justify their systemic oppression of a minority. The entire anti-immigration argument is framed on concept – that by changing our system to care for and accommodate immigrants we will make it work worse for the ones already here. Or if we change this system to combat racism and help raise blacks out of poverty we are degrading it for white people.

There’s not any single answer to this problem. But I think the categorical imperative is a meaningful guideline here. If a church claims to be for all children of God – like the Mormon Church does – but casts away autistic children then something is wrong. If a society claims to be good – but oppresses blacks, immigrants and other minorities – then something is wrong.

We are attracted to contrast. Not attracted really – it’s more like we’re hard wired to pay attention to it. Like contrast is a bug in the neural network that runs our attention system. We can’t help but ascribe special importance to the object that contrasts with it’s neighbors.

Now this bug can be useful. If your want someone to pay attention to something to learn something you present it in a way that contrasts. Contrast is used in Art, Film, Literature, Games in profound ways.

But it’s also used to excuse evil and to ignore good. If someone is good 99% of the time but commits one act of evil – the contrast is such that everyone looks at that one act. Conversely if someone is 99% bad and does one good thing – contrast forces you to observe that one good act.

Since the rise of Donald Trump I’ve heard the contrast excuse countless times. It goes like this: “Well he may be a terrible son of a bitch – but he’s right about not ignoring rural workers. Well he says stupid things all the time, but he did say something smart about earmarks. Etc.

(Coincidentallu many of these same people who make this excuse talk about Obama in the same way – i.e. Sure he was eloquent and all, but he lied that one time about Obamacare. Sure he was level-headed and all, but he blew it on Bengazi)

What this does show is an astounding lack of objectivity. If something is 99% bad and 1% good – you dont want it! As good as that 1% is the rest is garbage or worse. All decisions are important. Good must be pursued every day.

I think this is how abusive relationships work. The abused party becomes addicted to that 1% – because it’s so marvelous when it does occur. Whenever the abused is ready to quit they think of that one good thing that happened a few months ago and stay on for the next one.

This is probably a problem in good relationships too. You may have a partner who is always kind and caring, but does one selfish thing. And then that bad moment – by nature of it’s contrast – lodges in you brain, ready to be pulled up the next time things get hard.

Okay so I’m presenting this in a simplistic form. In reality “good” and “bad” are exceptionally difficult to define, and every act is somewhere on 20 different continuums. But it’s a principle worth considering.