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

221–230 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#221

Post by akvadrako »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #162
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.

> Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful. ...you realize where this goes, right? Like -- suppose you're right; and suppose you're given the power to suppress all such harmful discussions. You apply it. No more such discussion. Great. Now suppose this occurs but in fact you're wrong. We must then ask: How would you find out that you're wrong? Well, in such a case, you p…

You make a good point, but it would have more impact if it wasn't so verbose.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#222

Post by Certhas »

Chris2048 wrote: post #198
Certhas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech.

Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason:

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality

Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficult, there are grey areas, and we should be careful, but refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational.

And it's not like free speech is the only value humanity ever came up by which to judge things. Taking for example the human rights declaration, freedom of expression is one of the basic rights. But sometimes rights are in conflict with each other. Then we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights.

That's why we have libel and defamation laws everywhere.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#223

Post by Banthum »

foldr wrote: post #176
znfi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Really? Could you give a reference to anyone ever actually making this argument?

Professor Nicholas Matte states it in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

Not a really exotic belief in the core social justice circles.

Though advocates tend to avoid stating it outright, since it's so easy to attack and so ridiculous. So it's generally left implicit. E.g. They'll just say, "X field is only 30% women, we must fight the sexism that causes this", leaving it as an unstated assumption.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#224

Post by thebooktocome »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139
hueving wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>James Damore is a junior programmer who wrote a 10 page 'manifesto' accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes. Did he? I've seen it represented this way but it was my understanding that averages of society were being talked about in the manifesto. So from my understanding it didn't say anything about the women at Google who would presumably be on the far right side of the distribution either way. Men tend to…

> Did he? I've seen it represented this way but it was my understanding that averages of society were being talked about in the manifesto. Of course he didn't. It's easy to debunk by actually reading the original memo - I'm pretty sure people summarizing it that way are betting that their readers won't bother to check the source. Also, it's ironic that the ostensibly pro-diversity critics are literally equating "diff…

Two real numbers are different: is one necessarily less than the other?

Yes. This is a consequence of the law of trichotomy.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#225

Post by thiagoharry »

"As far as I can tell, the answer is simply: because Kolmogorov knew better than to pick fights he couldn’t win."

This is documented in some place and represent Kolmogorov views, or the author is just projecing it's own views and opinions? Because kolmogorov could just have being neutral about the politics in its country (like the majority of people) or perhaps even had some degree of support at the time. This opinion "its obvious that the soviets were E-V-I-L" are opinions coming from the other side of the cold war.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#226

Post by dunkelheit »

icebraining wrote: post #66
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…

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.

Then please go read it. I personally was surprised at how careful and level-headed it was. But due to space constraints his message is often dumbed down by the media to "google employee has said that due to biological differences women can't become decent engineers" which then gets the response it gets.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#227

Post by moduspol »

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…

> inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude?

This inquiry wasn't made. You have to read the memo.

> accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes.

This wasn't claimed, either. You have to read the memo.

I'm sorry but repeatedly here opponents are deliberately misrepresenting the content of the memo to try to take a moral high ground. We can't discuss this fairly if any opposing viewpoint is going to be framed as claiming women have inferior genes.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#228

Post by beaconstudios »

pjc50 wrote: post #202
beaconstudios wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rather than edge around your accusations, it might be better to state plainly what you're accusing him of. You're suggesting he's using "Marxist intellectuals" as a codeword for Jews, and that he's actually a Nazi (or at the very least a conspiracy theorist anti-semite) who is carefully wording his ideological diatribe so it sounds less ominous? This is usually the accusation that's thrown out by ideologues to silenc…

So why is he referencing Marxism in a discussion on gender? He's not actually referencing Marx, he's just .. labelling a bunch of people as Marxist? And therefore he is "accusing them of being secret ideologues on the other side", is he not?

because of the idea of "cultural Marxism", the lineage between Marxism and modern progressivism via critical theory. The story goes that the Marxist struggle was pivoted from economic to social when the working class in MEDCs didn't revolt in the 1900s.

[edit] also the fact that oftentimes the proposed solution to systemic oppression of women/minorities is ever-increasing power to the state to "even things out", which is a very Marxist concept.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#229

Post by nl »

Chris2048 wrote: post #219
nl wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

So which on my list isn't contrived?

I'd note that I'm asking question, and I keep getting "we don't need to discuss that" responses.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#230

Post by Chris2048 »

Certhas wrote: post #222
Chris2048 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ta…

First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech. Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason: E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficu…

> It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended

I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short.

A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one.

> refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational

I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion.

> we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights

True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new.

> libel and defamation laws

I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...

Post reply on HN