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

111–120 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#111

Post by smallnamespace »

hueving wrote: post #97
icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: even if you want to defend a "middle" position, that doesn't mean every argument roughly in that area is worthy defending. I didn't read the memo, so I have no opinion its merits on their own, but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending, because it clearly wasn't written in a way that could ever have a hope of convincing anyone not already on the fence.

>but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending That is only a valid stance assuming immediate responses are rational. When anything gets anywhere near a topic like this, the immediate responses that are shouted out will almost never be rational.

This is well supported by research [1].

System 1 is based on quick, emotionally based assessments. It's where your flight-or-flight response lies. Only once System 1 has sufficiently engaged, can System 2 take over and slowly chew on it.

Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#112

Post by icebraining »

hueving wrote: post #97
icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: even if you want to defend a "middle" position, that doesn't mean every argument roughly in that area is worthy defending. I didn't read the memo, so I have no opinion its merits on their own, but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending, because it clearly wasn't written in a way that could ever have a hope of convincing anyone not already on the fence.

>but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending That is only a valid stance assuming immediate responses are rational. When anything gets anywhere near a topic like this, the immediate responses that are shouted out will almost never be rational.

I disagree; a text that agreed with the overall company position on the topic would not get shouted at. I may be wrong, but I think one could take that and push a bit in any direction without arousing intellectual antibodies. I personally know people who got quite a few "dangerous" ideas past the censors of a fascist dictatorship, where the stakes were incomparably higher than writing a memo at Google. It's a skill, though.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#113

Post by benchaney »

pjc50 wrote: post #85
benchaney wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be obvious that anyone arguing against having a rational discussion is wrong about being in that camp.

Not all subjects are amenable to "rational discussion", since it's inherently a restricted format which has implicit rules about what does and does not count as "rational". It also tends to presume its own weightlessness. Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful.

> Not all subjects are amenable to "rational discussion", since it's inherently a restricted format which has implicit rules about what does and does not count as "rational".

I don't see how this follows. Are you suggesting that some topics can only be discussed if the discussion includes a non-sequitur.

> Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful.

On the balance it seems like trying to censor the discussion causes way more harm than having it. Particularly since trying to prevent the discussion inevitably produces a significantly more intense discussion.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#114

Post by fnord123 »

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I took the Kolmogorov option.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-With apologies to Martin Niemöller.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#115

Post by SidiousL »

nl wrote: post #107
benchaney wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be obvious that anyone arguing against having a rational discussion is wrong about being in that camp.

Why? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of race-based slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of child-slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of childhood labor? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of racial discrimination? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of gende…

If you find a rational person willing to defend any of the points you made, then yes, it is wrong to be against that discussion.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#116

Post by imron »

pjc50 wrote: post #85
benchaney wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be obvious that anyone arguing against having a rational discussion is wrong about being in that camp.

Not all subjects are amenable to "rational discussion", since it's inherently a restricted format which has implicit rules about what does and does not count as "rational". It also tends to presume its own weightlessness. Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful.

I'm genuinely curious as to how rational discussion about the contents of the memo is harmful.

If reasonable people are having a rational discussion (difficult on the Internet, I know), surely we can still talk about disagreeable facts and theories without causing harm.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#117

Post by db48x »

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…

https://archive.org/details/BROWNINGOrdinaryMen.ReservePolic...

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#118

Post by ZeroGravitas »

SidiousL wrote: post #92
pjc50 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore is himself deeply buried in identity politics, as can be determined by his use of the codeword "Marxist intellectuals" in one of his footnotes.

I think using "deeply buried in identity politics" is overstating facts. And I'm sure you can find many people in academia and otherwise who will clearly identify as Marxists and who advance the points of view that he was against. If being against a certain current of thought makes you "deeply buried in identity politics", then count me in.

I've now seen several defences of this, and it confuses me.

The whole "Marxist Intellectuals are destroying our society from the inside by promoting the gay lifestyle" thing only makes sense in terms of being a dog-whistle for people who don't like jews or gays or liberals generally.

It doesn't make any sense to me if I take it literally. How is Peter Thiel or Tim Cook being able to be open about their sexuality bad for capitalism? Why is it basically large corporations that are holding the line against anti-LGBT legislation in the united states. Has the devious Marxist plan backfired totally?

Can you outline for me exactly what these "Marxist intellectuals" are up to in terms of supporting gay rights, and how it differs from say the Log-cabin Republicans?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#119

Post by jules »

icebraining wrote: post #100
jules wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't know what the theory of evolution says, but considering the response it gets, I'd say it's not worth defending"

No, I'm saying that a particular text presenting the theory of evolution may not be worthy defending. There's a distinction between the idea and a particular representation of it.

Not a very big distinction. In some circles any defense of evolution would be treated similarly, no matter how reasonable. The beef is fundamentally with what was said, not how it was said.

What tipped me off was that almost nobody who criticised the memo was doing so by quoting from it. If the memo was truly as terrible as was suggested then surely quoting from it would be the best way to prove that. Then I read that an internal google poll showed that half agreed with the memo. So I decided to read the memo and found it civil and not inflammatory. Why not read the memo yourself?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#120

Post by danarmak »

icebraining wrote: post #100
jules wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't know what the theory of evolution says, but considering the response it gets, I'd say it's not worth defending"

No, I'm saying that a particular text presenting the theory of evolution may not be worthy defending. There's a distinction between the idea and a particular representation of it.

I don't know what Darwin's Descent of Man says, but considering the immediate reaction, I'd say it's not worth defending.
Post reply on HN