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

331–340 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#331

Post by [deleted] »

pavlov wrote: post #191
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#332

Post by mark_edward »

sounds wrote: post #306
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 m…

people post this stuff all the time, you should stop crying about persecution.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#333

Post by geofft »

brighteyes wrote: post #330
geofft wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have not attempted to refute his claims; they're too messy to make it a coherent task.

I have refuted the idea put forth by other people that his claims are supported by the scientific research he links to.

(My position, upthread of that comment, is that the document itself doesn't so much make claims that are wrong as display the deficiency of the author's critical-thinking skills to such an extent that Google should not have hired him. Imagine trying to read a design document or an outage postmortem written to the same level of coherence and with the same level of intellectual honesty.)

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#334

Post by brighteyes »

backpropaganda wrote: post #193
icebraining wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that you could write something that can push in a certain direction without alerting the shouters. It generally requires pushing only very gently, but it's not impossible if you're skilled.

Slightly off-topic, but what seemed so extremely surprising to me is that googlers who are supposed to be extremely smart were the shouters here. Blatant mis-representations were memed, demonstrating lack of both reading comprehension and basic statistics, not to mention biology. Where are the supposedly smartest people of the planet!

It always makes me sad to see people that think employees of any corporation are "the smartest people on the planet." It shows how effective PR can be.

Of course google employees are just the same as everyone else in the Valley. Which means: generally smart, and also including the same political and psychological quirks - some good, some bad- as everyone else. No better and no worse than other people in the area.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#335

Post by hellopier »

brighteyes wrote: post #327
manicdee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If this is referring to the google memo though, a company IS a dictatorship.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#336

Post by brighteyes »

hellopier wrote: post #335
brighteyes wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

If this is referring to the google memo though, a company IS a dictatorship.

Fair point, yeah. I took the article here to be talking about society more broadly, but I could be wrong.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#337

Post by brighteyes »

geofft wrote: post #333
brighteyes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have not attempted to refute his claims; they're too messy to make it a coherent task. I have refuted the idea put forth by other people that his claims are supported by the scientific research he links to. (My position, upthread of that comment, is that the document itself doesn't so much make claims that are wrong as display the deficiency of the author's critical-thinking skills to such an extent that Google sho…

Some of his claims are supported by the linked documents, some are not. Again, there are so many, any conclusion of "100% are supported" or "100% are not" is going to be false.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#338

Post by hellopier »

danarmak wrote: post #103
mjw1007 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So: subtle and qualified defence under a pseudonym; stay quiet under your own name?

The ability to doxx is too great today for pseudonyms to work well enough. The necessary opsec is more akin to that used when publishing illegal things the (real) government actively persecutes.

What would you need to do to limit doxxing potential?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#339

Post by jacalata »

ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #153
jacalata wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you start learning about the different distribution of ownership and access to personal computers among boys and girls, and it looks like the personal computer actually introduced the interest difference. The book Unlocking The Clubhouse has a bunch of discussion on this topic, if you're curious.

You mean that boys like computers more --> they buy more computers (or nag their parents about getting one), or that parents are more prone to give computers to boys --> girls never have the chance to get as interested? Interestingly, teenage girls seem to have more access to (desktop) computers than boys have nowadays: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/201...

The second one.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#340

Post by hellopier »

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…

Corporatiosn are dictatorships without freedom of speech. In the case of Academics what you say is true. But not really in the case of Google employees.
Post reply on HN