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

211–220 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#211

Post by dahauns »

Confusion wrote: post #75
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.

I think 'considering the immediate response' used to be a valuable heuristic, but isn't any more. Too many people have become too polarized. There are a bunch of folks from the tech industry on Twitter that I have followed for years, including some HN regulars, that are now, IMHO, in the 'too polarized' group. I no longer trust their opinion on various 'political' subjects to be the result of deliberate consideration…

> I think 'considering the immediate response' used to be a valuable heuristic, but isn't any more. Too many people have become too polarized.

It's also the medium. Social media...now that I think about it, actually today's media landscape in general is a self-reinforcing catalyst for this kind of polarization and emotionalization.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#212

Post by Grustaf »

pavlov wrote: post #191
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 th…

> Damore's firing was unavoidable under current US law

Could you elaborate on this?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#213

Post by badstatswat »

znfi wrote: post #87
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…

If I understand things correctly the argument by feminists etc is something along the lines of "there are no differences between men and women, and thus any difference in outcome must be due to discrimination". Firstly, even if there was only this claim and accusation, one might want to defend oneself against it. Especially since this is an almost universally agreed upon "truth" in the western world. Secondly, motiva…

You don't.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#214

Post by Banthum »

pavlov wrote: post #191
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 th…

Google's "pro-diversity" hiring policies also have the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company.

The broader patriarchy/privilege theory behind those "pro-diversity" policies has the unavoidable implication that many of those white male colleagues really shouldn't have their careers (and many other rewarding parts of their lives) at all, because they are based on 'oppressing' others.

There are poison grenades being thrown constantly by every side; only a severe double standard would allow someone to ignore this.

The real solution is to realize that any criticism of hiring policies (including criticism by 'diversity' advocates) means someone shouldn't have been hired. And then, to act like an adult and deal with it rationally anyways.

>unsupported biological claims

The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap.

If you want to see some of the research, Pinker has your back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM

Damore was very clear, neutral, and professional. But, there is no way in any universe Damore could have delivered that message where you would not criticize it like this. No matter how careful he was, you'd simply set the bar further out, increase the emotional sensitivity even more, engage in even more aggressive mind-reading and hostile misinterpretation. His writing could never, ever, in any form, never meet your ever-shifting standard because your standard is designed to be impossible to meet.

The reality is that you want him to be silent and you'll seek any excuse for him to suffer for questioning beliefs you see as morally obligated.

Saying, "He can of course question, but he has to do it better," while actually having impossible standard, is just a way to look/feel like you're being open when you're not.

It actually resembles behaviors you see in abusive relationships - the impossible standard that shifts every time it's met.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#215

Post by jtmarmon »

scandox wrote: post #173

I want to say this as respectfully as I can, but it isn't easy: the quality of discourse on these topics is really low on HN. At the same time I do think it's really important for them to be discussed. Time and again, though, I'm disappointed by how reductive and unmeditative these discussions are. I'm also surprised by how angry people seem. This is a site used by a lot of very smart people, but I think there is an…

can you be more specific? in what way do you think the HN comments are generally reductive and unmeditative?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#216

Post by akvadrako »

backpropaganda wrote: post #193
icebraining wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> Where are the supposedly smartest people of the planet!

Who thinks that corporate drones working for an evil megacorp are the smartest people?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#217

Post by FeepingCreature »

nl wrote: post #152
tpeo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an equivocation. There's such a thing as an is/ought distinction. The fact that there might be some rational description of morally abhorrent behavior doesn't lead to the conclusion that that behavior is acceptable . Understanding doesn't mean accepting. Darwinism, for instance, doesn't imply Social Darwinism. Neither do theories of criminal behavior attempt to legitimize crime. And if anything, anyone who's…

And if anything, anyone who's appalled by these things should actually be interested in studying the conditions under which these things might happen I agree with this very strongly. I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas. It's interesting. I used to believe that abhorrent ideas should be confronted. But I'm not longer convinced - it see…

The assumption of the right to decide what idea should be permitted to spread is an idea that's abhorrent to me. How can I combat it?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#218

Post by benmmurphy »

imron wrote: post #116
pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if you have a norm where people don't discuss certain things because it will cause offence to a group then having a discussion about things that will cause offence to that group is massive slight against that group. not only will it offend that group but it also shows that no-one cares about offending that group. i know this is a tautological argument. but i feel we do have a norm of not discussing things that will cause an offence to a group and even if you think this norm is wrong it is very difficult to change because the initial breaks in the norm are going to be resisted very heavily by those who feel they are being unfairly targeted.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#219

Post by Chris2048 »

nl wrote: post #209
Chris2048 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas. Who decides what is abhorrent? In what sense? Rational, yet undesirable? > abhorrent ideas should be confronted This is an entirely different think. A constructive (cooperative), rational discussion is different from an adversarial debate. > to allow abhorrent ideas to spread Again, who decides w…

I'm reluctant to get drawn into a discussion of who decides what ideas are abhorrent because it's a pretty big topic on its own. BUT, I do think (hope?) we can agree that there are some ideas that are abhorrent. I use the example of race-based slavery above. Why should I have a rational discussions about the economic benefits of race-based slavery? The cost/benefit analysis just doesn't seem to make sense - the cost…

I'll be honest - I think your example is contrived and/or a strawman, because you chose a "topic" that already seems to have assumed its conclusion e.g Can we have a "rational discussion" on "The benefit that 2 + 2 = 5"?

> Why should I have a rational discussions..

I think the question here is whether you can censor other people who want to have that discussion, not whether they can force you to participate.

> I'm unsure what possible benefits there are

But you want to veto the topic anyway? It sounds like you want to win the game without playing. To be considered "right" you must bear the burden of the argument.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#220

Post by popra »

akvadrako wrote: post #150
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your comment is dishonest. That isn't a quote from the memo. It is: [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race…

"[...] the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

This is a dubious claim to say the least. There was little to no pro gay rights or gender equality activism in the traditionally very conservative little corner of the Earth where I live (ex communist, eastern European country). However, coinciding with the recent rise of the alt-right, we've had a sudden surge of anti-gay rhetoric packaged along with strong anti-establishment speech - this seems conspicuously similar to the ultra-conservative speech (both Russian and American) attacking liberals. To the point where the governing, majority, LEFT party initiated a referendum for changing the constitution to define the "Family" as the result of the marriage between a man and a woman. Interestingly, the referendum is supported by most (I think all) political parties and a vast majority of people. The "Marxist warfare against the white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy" doesn't and didn't exist here, yet we have the same alt-right crap being used by the governing party to "feed" the masses, distract from their image of a deeply corrupt party and thus grab more power. Similar things are probably going on in other places, the "Marxist threat" is mostly a boogie man used for a plain old power grab.

Post reply on HN