The Kolmogorov option • Hacker News Board

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#301

Post by psyc » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #251

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 o…

I think your examples show that the mob is fickle, and that one's audience has a lot to do with how one is received, not that we enjoy very much practical freedom of speech.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#302

Post by noam87 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

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…

This week has really lowered my opinion of this industry and its members (and people in general, once again). From the flimsy and arrogant arguments presented on one side, to the inexcusable hysteria and verbal abuse coming from the other.

I've lost trust and respect for developers I followed and had for some reason assumed were level-headed adults.

This is highschool stuff guys. It's embarrassing.

More generally, if we can't trust our most capable minds to not act like children and blood-thirsty mobs, what hope is there for general discource as a society.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#303

Post by delazeur » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #190

pjc50 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore is himself deeply buried in identity politics, as can be determined by his use of the codeword "Marxist intellectuals" in one of his footnotes.

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…

> 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)

Do you genuinely believe that the only anti-Semites in the world are Nazis or conspiracy theorists?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#304

Post by yorwba » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #263

Sniffnoy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> bad epistemic practices The idea that some groups of humans are intrinsically inferior to others is one of these "banned" "facts" that has been excluded from civilised discussion for a reason, and that lies in the history of so-called "scientific racism" that was used to justify genocides in the 20th century. The idea that "some groups of humans have a statistical average of some attribute that is higher than some…

I agree that trying to make statistical arguments to someone who isn't capable of correctly interpreting the statistics can be harmful.

However, I disagree with your original claim that `Not all subjects are amenable to "rational discussion"`, since this is not independent of with whom you are discussing a subject. I am fairly sure that for any possible subject, there is someone you can rationally discuss it with, without causing any harm.

> you're arguing that saying "this discussion is harmful" is itself a harmful discussion!

I don't interpret Sniffnoy as calling the discussion itself harmful, rather they thought you were the kind of person who'd advocate preventing harmful things; thus they argued that a policy of suppressing "harmful discussion" would be harmful. (As opposed to just discussing such a policy.)

If you are not in favor of suppressing harmful discussion, then the free-speech issue also becomes moot; if it's just you saying "I really don't like this discussion." then that's an opinion you are entitled to, but everyone else is free to ignore it.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#305

Post by beaconstudios » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

delazeur wrote: post #303

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…

> 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) Do you genuinely believe that the only anti-Semites in the world are Nazis or conspiracy theorists?

of course not, but they're prominent examples, especially when it comes to the "identity politics" that the GP references.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#306

Post by sounds » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:03 PM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #251

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 o…

Here are three unspeakable truths for the United States. Bringing them up is a risk: there is almost no chance for calm, composed conversation.

1. The US Federal Government is not held accountable to the Constitution any more.

2. Income inequality is back to 1930's levels. Beside US Federal Government solutions, across-the-aisle solutions are attacked by corporations and large news sources.

3. Belief systems, their movements and organizations, that unite the populace against the US Federal Government are attacked by corporations and large news sources.

I like your optimism. The US has legs. Though we're crippled, we're not out of the race.

I like to engage in quiet, one-on-one conversations and subtly advocate for better solutions. I think Kolmogorov was a master at that.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#307

Post by yorwba » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:08 PM UTC

thebooktocome wrote: post #233

dunkelheit wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read it on the advice of your comment. It is neither careful nor level headed. The whole thing is a motte-bailey between differences in statistical group averages and individual hiring decisions. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey If there's such a large overlap between populations, as he claims in the first couple pages, why bother enumerating those differences in such extreme detail?

> If there's such a large overlap between populations, as he claims in the first couple pages, why bother enumerating those differences in such extreme detail?

My major problem with the presentation (as opposed to the content) of the ideas in the memo is actually that he doesn't give the effect sizes when he hypothesizes alternative explanations. They may be given in the linked references, but so far I have not bothered hunting them down; and I have no idea whether it's worth my time before I have checked them all.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#308

Post by abecedarius » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:11 PM UTC

There's an interesting book about that dynamic where some unknown number of people privately doubt a core public value -- "preference falsification": https://www.amazon.com/Private-Truths-Public-Lies-Falsificat... I read it after the 2016 election, but it's pretty old -- is there newer work anyone can recommend?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#309

Post by the8472 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

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…

> Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of X

Yes, it is wrong for any topic, no matter how immoral you consider it.

If someone of "the other side" is willing to engage in discussion then this in itself already is a huge win since you're not at each other's throats or creating bubbles lined with strawmen blocking the view of the other side.

And maybe you consider the chance small, but they might be willing to concede a few points, even if you're not going to overturn their entire worldview. And you might gain a little better understanding of them so you don't have to attack a strawman and might be able to address whatever underlying issue actually drives them.

Even in actual wars - you know, where people are busy killing the other side - you can still have negotiations. Why not consider rational discussion a negotiation of viewpoints long before you start murdering each other?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#310

Post by abecedarius » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

guillaumec wrote: post #50

I really enjoyed reading the The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about the state of mind of the population during Stalin leadership. He relates the story of a conference of the party where nobody in the room dared to be the last one to stop applauding in honor of Stalin. After a while everybody started to realize how stupid the situation was, yet they couldn't stop clapping because they all knew that this…

That scene stuck with me too. They keep going for, like, 15 minutes? Until finally some old fellow sits down. And he's taken away by the next day.