The Kolmogorov option • Hacker News Board

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#321

Post by geofft » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:20 PM UTC

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…

> The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap.

I have previously refuted the idea that the claims are supported by research. See the first part of this comment, which is based on reading the version of the document that does have the sources:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956998

It's true that there's decades of research cited. It's true that he makes claims. It's not true that the research supports the claims he's making.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#322

Post by xgk » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:22 PM UTC

jlborxes wrote: post #265

pavlov wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The context of his memo is an internal gender studies mailing list, which is supposed to serve exactly these kinds of discussions. It's not like he sent this document to unsuspecting employees.

It's hard not to be reminded of Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign (百花运动) [1] and Anti-Rightist Movement (反右运动) [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#323

Post by danharaj » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

benchaney wrote: post #142

vanderZwan wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're responding to a comment that almost literally says "opposing sides of any discussion always consider themselves the rational half" and you don't see the connection? You imply that it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational . It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality. People are not as rational as they think, and the more someone is in denial of having an irrational side t…

First off, when you quote something, please actually quote it, or at least be specific. I had a quite a time trying to figure what "a comment" and "Your statement" were referring to. > You imply it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational. It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality. Yes, that is why having a discussion is important. So that people can be exposed to arguments that…

It's possible to disagree with your post as in "this post adds no information and doesn't make the point that it thinks it makes" in contrast to "this post is logically invalid".

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#324

Post by cderwin » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:46 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #269

lhnz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Now obviously, what he did was injudicious. If you are a white male and suspect a diversity program is going to fail (and there's a lot of evidence that many of them do fail, sometimes even with negative impacts on the people they are meant to help) then you would be wise to shut up. The same would be true if a religious owner asked employees what they thought of their religion. It's best to just avoid disagreeing wi…

Sure, that makes sense in the short term. But if everyone did this, over a long period of time, two things would happen:

(a) Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective.

and

(b) Identity politics would achieve cultural hegemony.

I agree that it would be wise to shut up if doing so had no long term effects (as in your example of a manager asking about religion), but that clearly isn't the case here. And in the case of (b), I would say that long-term effect is extremely undesirable, for both businesses and individuals.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#325

Post by moduspol » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #231

Grustaf wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore's firing was unavoidable under current US law Could you elaborate on this?

This comment by macrael includes a link that explains the legal issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14966388 Regardless of what you think of the merits, a public corporation can't afford a persistent shadow of workplace discrimination. Firing the responsible employee was the only possible option. It's not a free speech issue, as there is no such thing in a work environment. Here's an exaggerated example: if y…

We'll never be able to discuss this rationally as long as one side continues to make false claims about what the memo said.

The memo doesn't promote discrimination, and in fact, raises concerns about how the existing policy is legally murky because it does--just in the other direction.

Your analogy is ridiculous, and just because some people perceive discrimination doesn't mean any has occurred. That there's a legal issue if you presume it has simply because people were offended is immaterial.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#326

Post by cderwin » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #320

lhnz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

That's a fair point, and I agree that (if so; those of us who don't work at Google don't really know what's going on) the argument that he should have expected not to talk about this at all is invalid. That's useful context, thanks. However, I don't think this necessarily excuses him entirely. If there's a company-wide discussion group for future directions on tech stacks inviting input, and I write a long post argui…

I don't really think it is debatable. Just the fact the the memo and the firing were so controversial, in both directions, implies that a number of strong critical thinkers are on both sides of this issue. Assuming that is the case, it's not reasonable to use the memo as evidence of a lack of critical thinking.

And I think we all know Google didn't fire him because they believed him to be incompetent. In fact, Google didn't even claim as much, they fired him for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes." How can we ever have a genuine conversation about the under-representation of women in tech if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#327

Post by brighteyes » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #138

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…

The Kolmogorov Option is not to simply stay quiet, it is to not participate in activities where the only outcomes are negative. So while avoiding the Red Pill brigade, participate in team building and reinforcing relationships with the people you want to keep around you. So you have a safe area (a domain of your life, not a physical constraint) where you relate to people with protected attributes the way they wish to…

"Choose your battles" does make sense, and I think the Kolmogorov option is an honorable one. But I'm not sure it should apply here:

First, Kolmogorov lived in a dictatorship. Most people talking here live in a democracy. We have many more options for fighting incorrect but widely-accepted beliefs.

Second, Kolmogorov lived before the internet. Internet anonymity helps minorities speak up and get organized (as we can see across the political spectrum).

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#328

Post by my_first_acct » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:08 PM UTC

Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability within subgroups of the population. In contrast to the minefields that Kolmogorov deliberately avoided, this minefield was not put in place by a repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic band of social-justice zealots.

My observation, which I will offer without citation, is that this particular minefield was put in place, mine by mine, over a period of decades, through a process of fairly broad societal consensus.

To those who suggest clearing the minefield, thus permitting this topic to be discussed freely in public, I will invoke the principle of Chesterton's fence [1]: Before you talk of removing the mines, you need to show that you understand why the minefield was created in the first place, and you need to explain why now is the time to remove it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#329

Post by danarmak » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #320

lhnz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

That's a fair point, and I agree that (if so; those of us who don't work at Google don't really know what's going on) the argument that he should have expected not to talk about this at all is invalid. That's useful context, thanks. However, I don't think this necessarily excuses him entirely. If there's a company-wide discussion group for future directions on tech stacks inviting input, and I write a long post argui…

If an employee argues for ASP, you might fire him because this implies he's a really bad technical worker. But you wouldn't (have to) fire him because, in arguing for ASP, he hurt the feelings of the PHP proponents in the company and made them feel they have to justify themselves, provoking some to say they would not be willing to work with him in the future even on PHP projects, and that if he wasn't fired they would resign.

With PHP vs ASP, we trust people to behave civilly and allow space for debate. With men vs. women, we don't. One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens; draw your own conclusions...

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#330

Post by brighteyes » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #321

Banthum wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap. I have previously refuted the idea that the claims are supported by research. See the first part of this comment, which is based on reading the version of the document that does have…

It's not possible to "refute" or "prove" his claims. There were many specific claims, and scientists still debate many of them.

The bigger point is anyone that thinks his claims are 100% true or 100% false is definitely wrong.