In 1987, economist and Nobel laureate Robert Solow made a stark observation about the stalling evolution of the Information Age: Following the advent of transistors, microprocessors, integrated circuits, and memory chips of the 1960s, economists and companies expected these new technologies to disrupt workplaces and result in a surge of productivity. Instead, productivity growth slowed, dropping from 2.9% from 1948 to 1973, to 1.1% after 1973.
That’s reductive. I’m no economist but it goes like this: there are models that predicts the effects of certain industry changes. The invention of certain technologies at a certain time had effects that didn’t match the prediction and they don’t know why. Someday somebody will figure it out and the model will be better. In the mean time, the model continues to work just fine with other stuff.
Also known as “being wrong”. Being wrong is fine. It’s great even. It means that there’s more to discover and improve. Calling it a “paradox” is a pathetic, self-serving attempt to save face when presented with evidence that makes them look bad. Instead of saying “We don’t know, but we’re working on it,” they pass it off as unsolvable.
Paradox was a word chosen by the journalist for clicks.
Not knowing enough is not the same as being wrong. They are different things.
You’re angry at journalism, not social science.
Maybe. Until they start calling this out for the farce it is, I’m gonna blame them as much as the journalists pushing the hype.
You’d be helped by learning something about social science rather than rail against it ignorantly. You could then make constructive critiques to improve everything.
I’m angry at social science. Just not about this specifically.