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

291–300 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#291

Post by psyc »

nl wrote: post #107
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.

Why? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of race-based slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of child-slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of childhood labor? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of racial discrimination? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of gende…

I won't say whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', but it does suggest that you believe rationality is flimsy and elusive, and therefore censorship is required as a first line of defense, lest people think dangerous thoughts.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#292

Post by jackmott »

akvadrako wrote: post #157
softbuilder wrote: post #32

What I find myself wanting to fight is not the prevailing views on a topic, it's the willingness to lie and mislead to promote those views. I saw that this past week with the Google memo situation. I also saw a shocking amount of it last year with the US election. Sloppy journalism feeds the people who seem to want to believe the worst in everything, who in turn feed entire social networks. Eventually sufficient peop…

Some of the worst offences are these new "fact-checkers" which all seem heavily biased towards the left. When so many people are committed to a motivated and shallow version of the truth, it's hard to find the people who care ONLY about the truth.

facts are left biased, at the moment. Even though 'the left' is clearly imperfect.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#293

Post by ZeroGravitas »

beaconstudios wrote: post #290
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's Bill Whittle's version of Cultural Marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n8wQceQq_Y Bill Whittle seems like an asshole by the way. But a slick asshole so he stays within the bounds of what's acceptable to say, though even that has some real craziness in it. Apparently you're not allowed to tell homosexuals that Iran mistreats homosexuals. "Marxist Critical theory" stops him from saying that somehow. I'm no…

I can imagine you find Bill Whittle to be an asshole, because it seems you are pretty far away from me on the ideological spectrum. That's fair, you have every right to think so, but I find him to be reasonably interesting. Not sure what you're saying with regard to Iran and their mistreatment of homosexuals? Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated l…

"Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated like dirt is a pretty bad deal? That strikes me as a rather low opinion of African Americans."

That's Bill Whittle's claim, from the video I just watched. Take it up with him.

He says there were no African-Americans, no Italian-Americans etc. in the 1920s, just "Americans", but the Marxists didn't like that. So they told the African-American's that the white people had stolen everything from them, and made them angry (because they "didn't know any better").

Are you seeing how, even in this watered down form, where he leaves out explicit mention of "the jews", how this is a conspiracy theory? Divorced from any kind of facts?

Personally, I wouldn't go around dropping the phrase "Cultural Marxism" casually and I would be very, very skeptical of anyone who does.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#294

Post by thebooktocome »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #262
thebooktocome wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the figure on page four and the subsequent laundry list of individual traits.

What about it? The figure literally says "this is bad and I don't endorse that". And if that's not enough, the paragraph that the figure is used to support says: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these…

Read your own quote.

> Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways...

He does argue that the population means for various traits are different. If two means are different, one is lesser than the other.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#295

Post by pjc50 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #266
pjc50 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's true, people will always have their own feelings towards subjects and we humans don't have the ability to cleanly separate our rationality from our emotions. However, denying an objective truth just because we find it hard to get to is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have tools available to us to get to the truth (science, logic, reason, open debate, etc), and to discard these tools leaves us with…

So which "objective" truth do you think has been discarded in all of this? Be rigorous.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#296

Post by beaconstudios »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #293
beaconstudios wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine you find Bill Whittle to be an asshole, because it seems you are pretty far away from me on the ideological spectrum. That's fair, you have every right to think so, but I find him to be reasonably interesting. Not sure what you're saying with regard to Iran and their mistreatment of homosexuals? Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated l…

"Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated like dirt is a pretty bad deal? That strikes me as a rather low opinion of African Americans." That's Bill Whittle's claim, from the video I just watched. Take it up with him. He says there were no African-Americans, no Italian-Americans etc. in the 1920s, just "Americans", but the Marxists didn't like that. S…

that's not quite the same as saying "black people didn't know they were being mistreated until the Marxists told them they were" though is it? It's pretty clear that black people were badly treated at that time though, so I'll have to re-watch the video later to see if that's what he's actually saying or your interpretation. The idea about progressives trying to divide people up into smaller and smaller groups of oppressor vs oppressed is one I agree with though.

> Are you seeing how, even in this watered down form, where he leaves out explicit mention of "the jews", how this is a conspiracy theory? Divorced from any kind of facts?

Firstly I don't think it has much to do with Jews at all, it's more of a philosophical position. Secondly, it's not like I just accept everything Bill says in the video - there are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with. I'm not even a conservative. There are parts of what he says that are clearly backed up by facts about the academic history of progressivism.

I don't tend to drop the phrase casually but I was trying to establish the link for the previous user who was questioning what the memo had to do with Marxists.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#298

Post by TeMPOraL »

thebooktocome wrote: post #294
TeMPOraL wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about it? The figure literally says "this is bad and I don't endorse that". And if that's not enough, the paragraph that the figure is used to support says: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these…

Read your own quote. > Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways... He does argue that the population means for various traits are different. If two means are different, one is lesser than the other.

> and "Y implies X"

That's what you are asserting, not the author. Isn't that a textbook definition of a straw man?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#299

Post by fnord123 »

philh wrote: post #250
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.

That's also correct. In some situations, we can die on our feet or live on our knees. The choice is ours.

I am fortunate that I don't live in a regime that requires me to make this choice.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#300

Post by beaconstudios »

pjc50 wrote: post #295
beaconstudios wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's true, people will always have their own feelings towards subjects and we humans don't have the ability to cleanly separate our rationality from our emotions. However, denying an objective truth just because we find it hard to get to is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have tools available to us to get to the truth (science, logic, reason, open debate, etc), and to discard these tools leaves us with…

So which "objective" truth do you think has been discarded in all of this? Be rigorous.

if you lay out which viewpoints you think are both objective, true and need to be discarded then I'll tell you. At a guess, I think the idea of tabula rasa has proven to be untrue and there are biological roots to some gender differences.
Post reply on HN