Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kolmogorov option

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#51

Post by macrael »

fvdessen wrote: post #41
macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

I'm fascinated by sentences like "He created a textbook hostile work environment." and "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences". I see them more and more, repeated verbatim, to justify why someone had to be removed from his social environment, or physically assaulted. Justifying physical violence from ideological reasons by repeating mantras. I tought I wouldn't see that in my lifetime, that it was a thin…

Please read the first article I linked. It's written by an employment lawyer! "Hostile work environment" is not a mantra, it has a legal definition that our justice system has been workshopping for decades. Please consider that this is actually a complicated area that many smart people have been arguing about and refining for years and years. The famous "fire in a theatre" example shows that there are limits to free speech, maybe this too isn't speech worth defending.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#52

Post by crocal »

idlewords wrote: post #22
wisty wrote: post #17

A bit of game theory might be useful - https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c... Riots and revolutions are difficult to start because of a number of obstacles: * It is not clear how many sympathizers you have. * Even if you believe you have the numbers, being the first to act may result in you being made an example of by the authorities. It's smarter then to rely on more ambiguous signals. Playi…

Since I presume you're a techie, it's funny that you overlook the main reason for Luther's success, which was technological—the invention of the mass-printed pamphlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Reformat... I would also urge you to resist the lure of game theory in analyzing human behavior. It's a toy model that gives toy insights.

Hear, hear!

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#53

Post by raverbashing »

idlewords wrote: post #22
wisty wrote: post #17

A bit of game theory might be useful - https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c... Riots and revolutions are difficult to start because of a number of obstacles: * It is not clear how many sympathizers you have. * Even if you believe you have the numbers, being the first to act may result in you being made an example of by the authorities. It's smarter then to rely on more ambiguous signals. Playi…

Since I presume you're a techie, it's funny that you overlook the main reason for Luther's success, which was technological—the invention of the mass-printed pamphlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Reformat... I would also urge you to resist the lure of game theory in analyzing human behavior. It's a toy model that gives toy insights.

Interesting info about the Propaganda

Game theory is more advanced than the prisioner's dillema, but unfortunately that's what's discussed in 99.99% of examples. And yes, it is a toy example.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#54

Post by Frondo »

jdoliner wrote: post #21

> if I don’t understand what is or isn’t hurtful, then I’ll defer to the leading intellectuals in my culture to tell me This essay was so promising, and then turned out to be a pledge of allegiance to the thought police.

I think you missed the point of that one. He doesn't want to hurt other people, but realizes he won't know all the ways he could do so accidentally.

So, in the interest of not hurting people, if he is unsure whether something will or not, he'll defer to smarter people about what's appropriate behavior.

If you don't care whether what you say hurts others, you need do nothing, need defer to no one any time, ever.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#55

Post by jacalata »

defen wrote: post #44
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He previously got caught up in an internet drama. It's hard to summarize, but he made a comment about how being a nerdy straight male was harder than being a woman or gay and how reading feminist books made him suicidal. He got a bit of blowback on that and so probably a reference to that: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

He didn't say "being a nerdy straight male was harder than being a woman or gay" - he said that when he was a teenager he was so ashamed of his sexuality that he wished he were gay or a woman so that he wouldn't have what he perceived to be shameful sexual desire toward women. He was the rare self-loathing straight man, and people on the internet literally wanted to ruin his career or even kill him for admitting it.…

He said "being a nerdy male might not make me “privileged”—that it might even have put me into one of society’s least privileged classes". http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#56

Post by jack9 »

pron wrote: post #36
kenbaylor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A veiled James Damore ('Google Manifesto') analogy perhaps?

Damore is no Galileo. He wrote about a subject he knows little about, didn't seriously research, and one that he actually doesn't seem too interested in studying at all. He wanted to enjoy the appearance of a "forbidden truth" while not caring to put in the effort of actually acquiring it. Aside from the fact that his opinion isn't popular in his immediate circle (yet far from revolutionary, and indeed very common am…

> He wrote about a subject he knows little about, didn't seriously research, and one that he actually doesn't seem too interested in studying at all

He has a Master's Degree in Systems Biology from Harvard. How do you reconcile that?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#57

Post by zem »

wrinkl3 wrote: post #47
zem wrote: post #28

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain"

I think what he's saying that if Kolmogorov was cautious enough to keep his unpopular opinions to himself, so can you.

yeah, but he was very clearly casting the whole thing as an "emperor's new clothes" situation with the implication that the unpopular opinions were self-evidently true but unmentionable.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#58

Post by jacalata »

tpeo wrote: post #30

Besides ideological self-righteousness, Aaronson left out one important component of oppressive regimes, which I think is actually far more important: it takes a relatively large amount of people to topple a regime, while small groups as well as individuals do nothing but expose themselves by rebelling. So no individual with any regard for his own personal safety has any incentive to rebel, and will instead go along…

I don't think you need something as serious as an oppressive regime to get into this state. It sounds like an instance of the Abilene paradox - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#59

Post by AndrewOMartin »

habitue wrote: post #33

Let's say this is about the Google memo. And let's say, for the sake of argument, you're a person who thinks Damore had some good points and some bad points but you think the hysterically censorious response to him was way over the line. But you don't want to become a pariah yourself, so you stay quiet about it. The argument Damore was making was fiddly, kind of subtle and takes a long time to explain, it's not worth…

A problem with this kind of analysis of the situation is that everyone thinks they're in the "subtle and qualified" camp.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#60

Post by tpeo »

crocal wrote: post #45
tpeo wrote: post #30

Besides ideological self-righteousness, Aaronson left out one important component of oppressive regimes, which I think is actually far more important: it takes a relatively large amount of people to topple a regime, while small groups as well as individuals do nothing but expose themselves by rebelling. So no individual with any regard for his own personal safety has any incentive to rebel, and will instead go along…

Is this situation really odd? I personally believe it is the norm. The conditions to have a rebellion are two: 1/ Sufficient people around the place dreaming/hoping/yearning for change; 2/ An unusual event that cannot be managed by "just following orders" As soon as the two are reunited, it's like throwing a lit match in a black powder keg. The larger the keg or the more powerful the match, the more spectacular the r…

As I said, I also believe it's much more common. I meant "odd" in the sense that it might lead to unintuitive situations if we only consider the preferences of the people involved. For instance, there might be situations where not a single person in the room might be in favor of the status quo, but not a single one of them dares to say it either, all out of fear that one of the others might be.

Of course, it isn't "odd" if we also consider the incentives involved.

Post reply on HN