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

251–260 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#251

Post by jancsika »

Two things:

* for a society that enjoys even minimal levels of freedom of speech, the Kolmogorov option isn't easily distinguishable from opportunism or careerism. * for a society like the U.S. that enjoys minimal levels of freedom of speech, what is an example of an unspeakable truth? Charles Murray's research exists. Brendan Eich is still rich. Richard Stallman has an extremely unpopular opinion about child porn on his website and he still does talks to people who worship the ground he walks on.

Frankly, it seems like the height of narcissism for a tenured professor to defend not speaking out against Trump by appealing to Kolmogorov.

It would be so refreshing to see the author instead appeal to Occam's razor and just call it cowardice.

Edit: grammar

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#252

Post by syrrim »

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…

>inferior genes

Not inferior genes, merely different genes. Is this so controversial?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#253

Post by pjc50 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #183
vanderZwan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the claim is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house. EDIT: This is why I believe people in STEM fields would really benefit from spending some ti…

if you throw out the concept of objective truth (a staple of postmodern philosophy) then there is no debating at all, because the whole point of debate is to get to the truth at the heart of a matter. With postmodernism all you have is interest groups waging war on each other to pursue their own benefit.

This implies discarding how people feel about subjects, because feelings are inherently subjective.

It also leads you into certain kinds of blindness about gender, because of the search for objective metrics. You end up measuring less relevant things - chromosomes - rather than more relevant things - gender presentation and socialisation - simply because they're easier to measure.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#254

Post by pjc50 »

smallnamespace wrote: post #101
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 Honest question: Are we willing apply micro-aggression theory in a uniform and consistent way, or are presumably privileged groups immune to them?

Oh, that was entirely deliberate. But are your feelings of upset about that generalisation rational, in the sense used by the memo author?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#255

Post by pjc50 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #228
pjc50 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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", whic…

> The story goes that

Ah, the story. But what about the facts? Aren't we supposed to be having a rational discussion here rather than telling stories?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#256

Post by lhnz »

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…

  > 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...?
The memo was in response to a request on the 'coffee beans' Google Group for input on diversity/hiring programs.

A few months later he posted it into the 'skeptics' group and that is when the mob formed.

Therefore, he was explicitly doing something that had been asked for. Because of this your argument is totally invalid.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#257

Post by pjc50 »

vanderZwan wrote: post #140
benchaney wrote: post #113

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". 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…

No, the claim is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house. EDIT: This is why I believe people in STEM fields would really benefit from spending some ti…

> the claim is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion

Thankyou, this is exactly what I meant.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#258

Post by beaconstudios »

pjc50 wrote: post #255
beaconstudios wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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", whic…

> The story goes that Ah, the story . But what about the facts? Aren't we supposed to be having a rational discussion here rather than telling stories?

agreed, and I think him talking about "Marxist intellectuals" poisons his own well to an extent because he's bringing an ideological conflict into what seems to have mostly been a reason and science-based argument.

[edit] also as a side note the lineage between Marxism and progressivism is open and provable. The story about how it came about, not so much (as far as I'm aware).

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#259

Post by testestx »

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?

Intersectionality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#260

Post by thinkfurther »

taneq wrote: post #232
thinkfurther wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still making up your mind by proxy, and the "best" part about that is, you don't know how many people whose proxy impression you take into account depend in turn also haven't made up their own mind, and whether they are reaction to the piece or reacting to what they think is expected of them. I don't distinct between one person and one billion people claiming or thinking something, what matters is why they do, w…

> And I have to kinda walk to eggshells to bring that up, to criticize "my own", and make sure to signal "I'm not a racist, I just think this is a bit too much". Does this ever work? Recently all I seem to see is "but you are, though, and twice as much if you try to deny it." The only acceptable position is in the direction of the groupthink position, with equal or greater magnitude.

In person it can work, on the internet with strangers never. But if I can't convince someone, I still have to hold my ground, and I can do that without anyone's cooperation or permission. I don't believe in the burden of convincing anyone, not when it comes to social things rather than new inventions or such. If you're older than 20, you had plenty time, roughly speaking, and some people don't change as much as come up with new excuses. Been there, done that, and I don't follow into rabbit holes anymore, they just slip to the back of the queue of people I support. Unless they're close to my heart, then I have as bitter fights about it as necessary. Each one teach one, and if I can't save the world there are still degrees to my own depravity within it, and over that I have control.

The question whether a group accepts me is much less important than whether I accept the group, from my perspective. And the thing about people who are in groups is insecurity, and the thing about people who don't need groups for identity is that they actually have and are what groups are only faking. So one on one, in person, people eat chalk or pout and avoid at worst, or open up at best -- but in faceless groups or the internet it's kind of bleak, I agree. But when all you have is a swamp and a spoon, using the spoon is still better than just sitting by the swamp, right?

Post reply on HN