That transactional view of love is exactly the sort of technomyopia I would expect from the HN crowd.

So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means, as opposed to continuing in the usual ambiguous, gut-feeling-driven thinking?

I for one like this kind of "technomyopia", because it works off a framework that lets humans eventually figure things out.

I get where you're coming from. Its just that technology is not the right framework to attack all problems. The app OP mentioned is essentially a tool to track trading favors between people - its not anywhere close to "love". In fact the addiction to tech, social media, smartphones etc. is making us spend less real face-face time with people (well-documented), so I would say its precisely the wrong tool to use.

Not saying we should give up, but this is a social problem, better analyzed with more apt tools like social science. Relationships grow with time & investment in interacting with someone else - given that, no amount of "apps" or tech magic can make a fundamental difference.

It was probbably a joke, but such an app could be incredibly valuable to those who were perpetually ostracized in their youth and never learned how to interact. Simple things like, "Thank him for this," or, "Tell her she's really good at that," might not even occur to some people who were never exposed to anyone who demonstrated those things.

it would certainly be a good cue system for people with mild autism/aspbergers, or social difficulties.

All fair points. I was addressing the very general criticism OP expressed. Even the social science you mentioned, when done right, is part of the "science and technology" toolbox.

>So why are you here? To laugh at people looking for solutions to problems using well-defined means...

No, to laugh at people who think that because they have a hammer, that every problem is a nail, and maybe also the people who believe that the analogy is really really true, so long as you're using the magic hammer of technology.

If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology, please share. You may save the world and win a few prizes with that.

Social problems tend to require a different, fuzzier toolkit that involves emotional labour. Especially when you're working with areas that are not broadly understood. You're starting from the assumption that only those types of solution are valid, whereas most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain.

Starting from the assumption that every worthwhile problem must have a scientific or technical solution is exactly the hammer looking for nail that comments here are complaining about.

I'm not arguing that emotions are to be ignored, or that the area is understood. It's not. But still, science is literally, if broadly, defined as the method of figuring things out that actually works.

Maybe the OP was just meaning to criticize the app idea, but the way they wrote, it looks like a general criticism of technology as a problem solver - criticism I believe is naïve and unwarranted.

> most social change is neither scientific nor technological but word-driven and operating in the emotional domain

I disagree with that, but that's a longer discussion about technological determinism.

>If you know of any other effective way of solving problems other than applying broadly understood science and technology

I think it's possible to believe in the efficacy of science and technology, while at the same time doubting that crossing OKCupid with TaskRabbit will usher in "a utopia that would fulfill people's need to be needed by each other" (which is the concept that started this whole subthread)

Or course. I also doubt the effiacy of that particular idea. But the OP started going about "HN's technomyopia", which is a quite broader thing than just an app idea.

It would have to be atomic, isolated and consistent.

As opposed to biomyopia, where love just magically arises from ether and happiness and babies are created, without regard for anything else.

What's weird is you could probably find people to buy into that model on both sides, making it completely valid.

Isn't that called a sugar daddy/mommy relationship?

Social acceptance has never been easy. You either have to submit to the tyranny of group identification, or go forever lonely. People are looking for a magic solution, something that will allow them to find love and acceptance without actually being forced to give any back.

It doesn't matter whether you're joining an 18th century gentleman's club or looking for a healthy relationship. Love and acceptance comes from understanding and meeting the other's emotional needs. If you think about what it takes to actually do that for another person, you'll find out why people watch rom-coms. Meeting someone else's needs feels like living under a dictator.

>You either have to submit to the tyranny of group identification, or go forever lonely.

I think the solution to that is to have more group identities and subcultures, and better ways to discover them.

Won't make the act of submitting to group identity any easier. You can already go online and find any number of identities, from chainsaw enthusiast to Sonic the Hedgehog furry. If you want one, you can find one. Most people who are lonely don't.

That's turning interpersonal relationships into romance quests. That's an especially terrible idea.

> I wish the internet would grow into something like that

That could be great, but how would it be paid for?

Advertising.

> Does anyone have ideas how to write a utopia that would fulfill people's need to be needed by each other

What if you don't have a need like that ? The only reason I wouldn't sign up for a one-way trip to Mars is because they would probably want to send other people too.

For me, a key piece of friendship is that you don't have to track favors. There is always going to be c an imbalance, but being aware of it can only harm.