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

241–250 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#241

Post by kbart »

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…

"James Damore is a junior programmer who wrote a 10 page 'manifesto' accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes."

Read it again, there was not a single word about "inferior". "Different" is the correct word here. Your posts highlights the precise reason we can't have a meaningful discussion on this problem.

Your second link to a graph about women working with computers have another explanation - typist was seen "women's" profession back then and early computers were also seen as somewhat improved typing machine, that's why many early computer operators were women. Few older professors told us that in 70s and 80s it was common in university to employ a typist (typically a woman) to enter programs into computers, I'm pretty sure they were counted as "programmers" in that chart.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#242

Post by empath75 »

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…

I think it's more that his argument was muddled and I'm not going to bother arguing for or against a paper that isn't saying anything particularly new or interesting.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#243

Post by zimpenfish »

Chris2048 wrote: post #230
Certhas wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suffici…

There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but...

> There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech"

...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe.

You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#244

Post by pavlov »

Banthum wrote: post #214
pavlov wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Damore was very clear, neutral, and professional.

He wasn't professional because it is not his job to debate this at work! I don't understand how this very simple point gets lost. A public corporation is not a democracy.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#245

Post by empath75 »

mseebach wrote: post #31

I don't know anything about Kolmogorov, so I can't evaluate the assumption that he obviously saw through the lies and was horrified by the brutality - but I will note that a great number of prominent intellectuals, who were in absolutely no private danger from the soviet regime whatever they'd believe and say, and who definitely had access to information about the brutality, who still chose to support and defend the…

I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not remotely comparing the two situations, but a whole lot of people in the us stood by and watched us launch a pointless war of aggression based on lies that we're still seeing the bloody consequences of today.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#246

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #143
mseebach wrote: post #31

I don't know anything about Kolmogorov, so I can't evaluate the assumption that he obviously saw through the lies and was horrified by the brutality - but I will note that a great number of prominent intellectuals, who were in absolutely no private danger from the soviet regime whatever they'd believe and say, and who definitely had access to information about the brutality, who still chose to support and defend the…

Related, I was shocked to learn just how popular Soviet ideology was with western intellectuals in early- and mid-XX century, even though there was already plenty of evidence available about how huge a disaster it was. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-...

It's easy to identify a disaster with the safety and comfort of decades of hindsight, but rather less easy to see today's contemporary equivalents.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#247

Post by moduspol »

pavlov wrote: post #239
moduspol wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company. Any criticism of existing hiring policy would logically result in the same implication. If it's fair at all to question a hiring policy, this needs to be not taken personally. Besides, presumably at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the ca…

... at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the case that they should. Yes -- the management of the company decided this. I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume that they should have free rein to debate company policies, on company networks and on company time...? A public corporation is not a democracy. Publicly second-gu…

> Yes -- the management of the company decided this.

...yet nobody took personal offense because of the implication that some of them shouldn't be there. That's the point.

I'll agree that the context is questionable... but only because we don't have the details. I don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about making a case for a change in hiring policy.

If the place where it was posted was specifically used to discuss how company policies can be improved, it seems reasonable. If it's a place only visible to HR and management, it seems reasonable. If it's a place specifically for topics that are potentially political and offensive in nature, it seems reasonable (even if internal). If posts in support of (or proposing extending) the existing diversity policy were effectively allowed in that place, it seems reasonable.

It's the double standard where one set of politics is approved and encouraged, but the other is fireable that is problematic.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#248

Post by [deleted] »

tpeo wrote: post #104
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…

Putting Damore's stuff aside for a while (I haven't even read it yet), reasonably discussing anything and having some sort of "Bohm dialogue" is one of the hardest things in the world. Not only it takes quite a bit of mental effort, but it's also easily disrupted. The loudest and most obnoxious people in the room can very well misrepresent or ignore whatever you said, take a few bits of it and use it to build their o…

[deleted]

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#249

Post by Chris2048 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #243
Chris2048 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suffici…

There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.

Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others.

But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means?

There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected.

Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#250

Post by philh »

fnord123 wrote: post #114

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.

One of the things TFA is pointing at is that the alternative might be:

First they came for the Socialists, and I spoke out, and they decided I was a Socialist and took me away too.

Post reply on HN