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

191–200 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#191

Post by pavlov »

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…

Because no one stopped and offered a third option: actually discussing his argument, acknowledging where he was right, and discussing what he got wrong.

You're assuming Damore's argument exists in a vacuum. But it doesn't. It had a stated purpose of changing HR and hiring policies at Google, and with that, the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company.

When you throw that kind of poison grenade into a work environment and back it up with unsupported biological claims, it's not a surprise that any good points in the argument will be ignored.

I'm reminded of Wiio's law, "All human communication fails except by accident." [1]

If you want to make a subtle point, you must communicate it very clearly -- for some reason many writers like Damore take the opposite approach. And if you want an argument to be debated from first principles, isolate it from real-world consequences like stepping on established workplace legislation. (Damore's firing was unavoidable under current US law.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#192

Post by Boothroid »

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…

I couldn't agree more, I think the level of left wing propaganda in the media is pretty terrifying. What reassures me is that most people seem to hold very different opinions than those the liberal media seem to be trying to indoctrinate.

Personally I think you can find racial and sex differences if you look for them. The athletics world championships are on at the moment. What race wins most of the races? Why do we have separate men and women's events? And yet we are told that despite there being obvious physical differences, there are no differences in non-physical aptitude, and furthermore, even to ponder the idea is heretical. I don't get it. Do we really think that if differences were found we are about to start herding one race off to labour camps? Or ban men from going into child care because they don't have the natural aptitude for it?

I always think it's worth questioning prevailing beliefs, at least within my own head.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#193

Post by backpropaganda »

icebraining wrote: post #131
benchaney wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've clearly missed the point. The people doing brain dead shouting on each side will never be convinced anyway, so it is ridiculous to criticize the memo for not being able to convince them.

My point is that you could write something that can push in a certain direction without alerting the shouters. It generally requires pushing only very gently, but it's not impossible if you're skilled.

Slightly off-topic, but what seemed so extremely surprising to me is that googlers who are supposed to be extremely smart were the shouters here. Blatant mis-representations were memed, demonstrating lack of both reading comprehension and basic statistics, not to mention biology. Where are the supposedly smartest people of the planet!

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#194

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #76
macrael wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The famous "fire in a theatre" example was invented to justify censoring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.

[deleted]

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#195

Post by Certhas »

benchaney wrote: post #148
Certhas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not obviously. Or at least not if we're talking about having public rational discussions about it. The validity and correct interpretation of evidence is extremely hard for a lay audience to judge. Putting a climate scientist and a climate science denier on a podium to have a rational discussion is not likely to lead the audience to a more rational decision. Ditto for creationists. Does this concrete case fall into t…

There is a difference between not wanting to participate in a discussion because you believe it to be unfruitful/counterproductive, and trying to actively shut down other peoples discussions. I was criticizing people who do the latter. Does that address your issue with my assertion?

Maybe. I am arguing that one shouldn't participate in "rational discussions" with people who don't adhere to the standards of rational discussion themselves, especially in public.

If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down other people's discussion? If not then we have no significant disagreement.

And for the record, I think shaming people into being silent about their opinions, even if they are demonstrably incorrect, instead of trying to change them, strikes me as a big mistake.

So there is a difficult balancing act between not allowing people to propagate irrational believes that don't engage with the available evidence (and promote views that are actively harmful to a part of the population), and engaging with people to convince them of the evidence and the rational view.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#196

Post by Chris2048 »

mjw1007 wrote: post #42
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…

So: subtle and qualified defence under a pseudonym; stay quiet under your own name?

Memo authored used his own name, was fired anyway. What is the point? While he may still have legal options, what does opening yourself up to harm prove?

It's only reasonable to insist you use your own name is a rational, fair system; which the internet, and court of popular opinion is not; As such, anonymity is something of a right, and should be a standard on the wild-west environment of the internet.

Plus, since the author provided citations, there is no value in providing his own name - the authority doesn't come from the author. He is inviting a discussion on the topic, and it doesn't really matter who he is to do that - anyone wanting to join the discussion should still be free to do so.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#197

Post by Chris2048 »

Certhas wrote: post #136
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 obviously. Or at least not if we're talking about having public rational discussions about it. The validity and correct interpretation of evidence is extremely hard for a lay audience to judge. Putting a climate scientist and a climate science denier on a podium to have a rational discussion is not likely to lead the audience to a more rational decision. Ditto for creationists. Does this concrete case fall into t…

> conveniently ignoring the mountains of evidence that don't fit the stated thesis.

This is a tricky subject: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...

As a (relative) laymen, I think he makes a good effort. And he doesn't even seem to assume his conclusions, instead inviting further discussion on the topic.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#198

Post by Chris2048 »

Certhas wrote: post #195
benchaney wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between not wanting to participate in a discussion because you believe it to be unfruitful/counterproductive, and trying to actively shut down other peoples discussions. I was criticizing people who do the latter. Does that address your issue with my assertion?

Maybe. I am arguing that one shouldn't participate in "rational discussions" with people who don't adhere to the standards of rational discussion themselves, especially in public. If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down o…

> standards of rational discussion

> views that are actively harmful to a part of the population

Unless explicit clarified, these are too open to abuse and scope creep.

Consider - one of the few "loopholes" to free speech is speech considered "hateful"; As such we see an active effort to expand what is considered "hateful", and any call to censorship will now begin with a justification of applying the label to its target, however contrived that link might be.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#199

Post by tome »

smallnamespace wrote: post #111
hueving wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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_proces…

> 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.

This is one of the best takeaways from this whole sorry saga.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#200

Post by mathzthrowaway6 »

Note: as a throwaway I was unable to complete edits to this comment, therefore please upvote (and endorse) only this version. The first version should remain dead as a dupe.

-----

In the spirit of the article we're discussing, I wrote the present comment to 1) teach something about mathematics and probability 2) share a bit of social enlightenment.

In summary this comment should change your thinking fundamentally. You will need to read it carefully but I promise it is relevant. (Please endorse it and upvote it, if you agree.)

--------------

   Program of study for this comment.

   I suggest you go through this comment as follows.

   1.  Read section 1 (approx. 1 hour.)
   Goal: improve your mathematical reasoning.
   
   2.  30 minute break.
   
   3.  Read section 2 (approx 5 minutes).
   Goal: social insight.

   4.  Generalize the insight just gained.
   Goal: make the example more practical.

   This is an exercise for the reader.
----------

1. One of the most important mathematical videos you will ever see.

Firstly, unless you are a practicing mathematician this is one of the most important mathematical video you will ever see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrK7X_XlGB8

Watch it. As a result you will improve your rational thinking forever.

-

Break. I suggest you next take a 30-minute break. During this time you can reflect on and assimilate the knowledge you have learned.

-

2. An important social insight.

This section requires you to understand section 1.

Next, suppose that you are perfectly rational. We will introduce an extreme case, and you will have to generalize it yourself, to come up with the social insight I promised.

Base (extreme) case.

If I present you a (fair) coin and ask you to judge whether it is fair, after, say, thirty or forty flips you will conclude that it is likely fair. You can never be sure, of course, but you will have a high confidence.

However, if I give you the same coin but also the knowledge that it was drawn at random from an infinite bag with 1 fair coin in it -- for example, let's say coins are numbered, I select a real number at random between 0 and 1, and only the coin with the exact value 0.5 is fair, any other coin is unfair, weighted - then even given hours, days, weeks, or years of flipping, you will come to me with the same conclusion: there is a 0% chance (you will have 0% confidence) that the coin is fair and 100% chance that the coin is weighted.[0] If I bet you a thousand to one that it is fair, you would put any amount of money that it is weighted: regardless of the amount of testing you did and the results of your tests.

This includes your running every test for randomness, flipping it millions of times and analyzing the result, anything you want.

So let's look at what happened. You have been moved from being able to quickly decide whether a coin is likely fair, to being completely unable to accept that the coin is fair. No matter how much evidence you can collect, you can only conclude with 100% certainty that the coin is unfair.

The only thing that changed is the understanding of the population it was drawn from.

Okay. So why is this a problem? For the simple reason that the coin labelled 0.5 exists.

If you reflect on the plight of coin 0.5 you will understand why it is very wrong to talk about the bag from which it was drawn or how.

Exercise: generalize this result for finite cases.

References:

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

Post reply on HN