Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
92 points
4 hours ago
| 14 comments
| improvesomething.today
| HN
didgetmaster
1 hour ago
[-]
People often attribute the government's inability to solve a problem even after throwing billions of dollars at it; as a sign of incompetence. While there is plenty of incompetence within government; I think the 'Preserve the Problem' response is mostly to blame.

If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the problem often have the least incentive to do so.

reply
MattGrommes
47 seconds ago
[-]
I'm genuinely curious about even a hypothetical more detailed example of how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally. I can't wrap my mind about how it would actually happen beyond simplistic sayings.

I live in Portland, OR where we have a large homeless problem and I continually hear that the groups being given money to help are incentivized to keep homelessness high for their own purposes. Like, obviously people who are paid like to keep getting paid but how would they go about making this happen when their job is the opposite?

reply
have_faith
1 hour ago
[-]
Does anyone within the system genuinely feel threatened by the idea that something like "crime" can be "solved" to the point that they're avoiding solving too much crime? Same logic for the others.
reply
didgetmaster
10 minutes ago
[-]
I don't think that anyone believes that some problems like crime and poverty can be solved such that it completely goes away. By 'solving', I meant take action such that the result is obvious in that the problem is greatly diminished.

And yes, I do think that individuals and departments feel threatened that they will be impacted if something like that actually happened.

reply
treis
47 minutes ago
[-]
It's not quite that black and white. You have fixed amount of policing resources and it goes to the most impactful crimes. If crime goes down then they start caring about petty stuff. If it goes back up then they stop.

This applies more directly to something like foster care. My state is going through a budget crisis and anecdatally the result is significantly fewer kids coming into and remaining in care. It moves at the margins so a borderline case that might have resulted in removal before now doesn't.

As you note it's unlikely that some problems can be completely solved. But our resource allocation is mostly fixed or varies based on circumstances beyond whatever problem is being solved.

reply
enos_feedler
14 minutes ago
[-]
If this is true then a restructuring of the entire organizations might help. It seems the flaws are built in.
reply
dooglius
52 minutes ago
[-]
It's going to be a much more granular detail than all of crime. If your job is to investigate counterfeited 27B-6 forms, you are going to be threatened by that form moving to being filed digitally with cryptographic signatures.
reply
dmitrygr
55 minutes ago
[-]
A LOT of crime can be solved. A huge percentage of perps are multi-repeat perps. Putting them away permanently would solve a lot of crime.

"75% to 83% of released prisoners are arrested for a new crime" https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisone...

reply
tchalla
53 minutes ago
[-]
… in the US
reply
skinfaxi
51 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, kind of obvious from the .gov right?
reply
whall6
32 minutes ago
[-]
seems cruel and unusual…
reply
GauntletWizard
29 minutes ago
[-]
Unusual? Only because we've made it so. Cruel? Nah. Locking someone up because they're criminally insane is less cruel than letting them roam the streets, both to the perpetrator and the people around them.
reply
rawgabbit
1 hour ago
[-]
The "meta" problem is that political in-fighting usually results in local optimization everywhere. Various departments throw each other under the bus to steal budget/people/resources. When leadership finally decides to right the bus, they hire an outside consultant; this is an important signal to the departments to stop the nonsense and tell the consultant what everyone knows but doesn't want to talk about. Serious problems require serious solutions. It is much easier to say if Y department would give us X, then line go up forever.
reply
sharadov
48 minutes ago
[-]
The pushing problems around under the guise of solving them for political gain is what corporate and government malfeasance is all about.

The better you are at the game the higher you climb!

reply
0wis
3 hours ago
[-]
Nice article, interesting to keep an open mind. On "No. 0002. Preserving problems", it can happen to people too, no need for a complex system at the size of a company. I have often noticed recognized experts keeping the root of the problem unsolved because it was justifying their position. I may even have been subject of this curse. As an expert, you may know the root cause but have no incentive to solve it and it can be harder to mobilize ressources to solve the root cause than to keep solving the superficial issue. It is management or outside help role to identify and push for solving problems at their root, but it takes time and dedication because of expertise. As most of the time, incentives explain nearly everything.
reply
cheschire
3 hours ago
[-]
Seems related to the four risk management strategies:

- Avoidance

- Mitigation

- Transference

- Acceptance

reply
blitzar
1 hour ago
[-]
Sounds like the classic 5 stages ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
reply
Insanity
37 minutes ago
[-]
Well, I guess both risk management and the 5 stages are inherently a human activity. Not too surprised that behaviour transfers across personal/professional boundaries. :D
reply
functionmouse
1 hour ago
[-]
reminds me of an old meme

> have "problem"; don't care: no problem

reply
throw4847285
30 minutes ago
[-]
There is a fourth that the author would never mention:

Hire consultants about the problem

reply
jagged-chisel
3 hours ago
[-]
> … they inadvertently perpetuate the problem

“Inadvertently”? Seldom.

reply
shermantanktop
2 hours ago
[-]
Do you think people look in the mirror and say “I’m going to be a terrible person today?”

They look in the mirror and say “good job playing the hand you’re dealt - keep it up!” even while what they do is objectively terrible.

Humans have an incredible capacity for rationalizing their own behavior.

reply
jagged-chisel
2 hours ago
[-]
That’s definitely not “inadvertent.”
reply
blitzar
1 hour ago
[-]
Not my problem - the best kind of problem.
reply
MarkusQ
2 hours ago
[-]
Three more common ways of responding to a problem:

Weaponize it.

Study it.

Blog about it.

reply
andsoitis
3 hours ago
[-]
There’s a fourth: deny
reply
1970-01-01
3 hours ago
[-]
There's a 0th: empathy. They want to hear you say you heard them, hear you say the problem is a problem, and have you say the problem is making things harder.
reply
pessimizer
44 minutes ago
[-]
The cool thing about this one is that you don't even have to understand what they said, just learn how to repeat it back to them with a sad look on your face.
reply
ActionHank
3 hours ago
[-]
My colleagues like this one.
reply
metalman
3 hours ago
[-]
or perhaps thats the first response?

in any case, as a hard core problem solver who is currently overwhelmed with problems I am bieng forced into no choice paragmatic responses. where I have lost any reserve capacity, deflect, move, deny a problem and get some rest, eat, shave the yak, before rejoining the fray with enough energy to perform is just part of the routine now. ie: triage or go under, which may be habit forming

reply
jagged-chisel
3 hours ago
[-]
Denying the problem exists is not the same.

Denying that the problem is a “problem” would be.

In the first case, the affected do nothing because there is no problem.

In the second, it’s “not a problem” because they did a thing and moved it elsewhere.

reply
josefritzishere
1 hour ago
[-]
hug of death?
reply
black6
2 hours ago
[-]
The company for which I work seems to be run by engineers. When learning to be an engineer you're taught that doing nothing is always a valid option. In Army leadership courses we were taught that ANY decision is better than NO decision.

My company is stifled by a bunch of engineers in leadership positions who always choose to defer up the chain rather than make a decision themselves.

reply
an0malous
1 hour ago
[-]
“Do nothing” can be a decision
reply
IshKebab
1 hour ago
[-]
The most common response I see is "unfortunately this problem is impossible for us to fix because I can't be bother.. err I mean because of these technical reasons. Yes definitely that."
reply