The Kolmogorov option • Hacker News Board

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#381

Post by popra » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

jonloldrup wrote: post #356

Certhas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not obviously. Or at least not if we're talking about having public rational discussions about it. The validity and correct interpretation of evidence is extremely hard for a lay audience to judge. Putting a climate scientist and a climate science denier on a podium to have a rational discussion is not likely to lead the audience to a more rational decision. Ditto for creationists. Does this concrete case fall into t…

> For example, it selectively cites a tiny corner of the > research literature, conveniently ignoring the mountains > of evidence that don't fit the stated thesis. You really should provide some sort of reference on that claim. I would say, that the consensus among psychologists in academia is the opposite of what you suggest: A majority of those people would admit that genes have a significant influence on differenc…

So given the "consensus" that "genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.", you're basically saying that a significant and spontaneous, yet undetected, mutation appeared in the human female population, during the '80s [1] ?

[1] https://m.imgur.com/t/the_more_you_know/pkZPrOI

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#382

Post by Dirlewanger » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

imron wrote: post #283

benmmurphy wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you have a norm where people don't discuss certain things because it will cause offence to a group then having a discussion about things that will cause offence to that group is massive slight against that group. not only will it offend that group but it also shows that no-one cares about offending that group. i know this is a tautological argument. but i feel we do have a norm of not discussing things that will c…

Offense and harm are different things.

The problem is that they are being seen as one and the same. Words that people don't like are being seen as causing material injury. That's why professors are giving warnings before class that certain topics may be "triggering" and that students don't have to have their fragile minds assaulted by differing opinions.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#383

Post by kkylin » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

Very much off-topic: I understand the post and the present discussion are not about Kolmogorov's scientific work, but I could not resist pointing out that in addition to all the great things Scott mentioned, Kolmogorov also made significant contributions to fluid turbulence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence#Kolmogorov.27s_theo...) and linear filtering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_filter#History), among many, many other things.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#384

Post by cderwin » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #369

moduspol wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that could result in unequal outcomes is also controversial. Although, to your point, that doesn't really require critical thinking. It just requires impressive mental gymnastics to dispute.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there are biological differences between men and women (on the average) that result in unequal distributions of some outcomes. An easy example is "fastest marathon" or "number of babies". The dispute is that there are biological differences between men and women that are relevant to qualification to work at Google in software engineering .

That's the argument alt-right folk who actually deserve our hostility are trying to use Damore to make. Damore, however, is instead arguing that those biological differences make women less likely to pursue engineering as a field, not that those difference make them inferior.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#385

Post by Certhas » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

jonloldrup wrote: post #356

Certhas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not obviously. Or at least not if we're talking about having public rational discussions about it. The validity and correct interpretation of evidence is extremely hard for a lay audience to judge. Putting a climate scientist and a climate science denier on a podium to have a rational discussion is not likely to lead the audience to a more rational decision. Ditto for creationists. Does this concrete case fall into t…

> For example, it selectively cites a tiny corner of the > research literature, conveniently ignoring the mountains > of evidence that don't fit the stated thesis. You really should provide some sort of reference on that claim. I would say, that the consensus among psychologists in academia is the opposite of what you suggest: A majority of those people would admit that genes have a significant influence on differenc…

I don't have time for an in depth response, but:

> A majority of those people would admit that genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.

This is in no way in contradiction with anything I said. I specifically said the majority of the gender patterns we see are cultural. Not anything else.

I did not say either that "All human differences are cultural." nor that "All gender differences are cultural."

If you enjoy The Blank Slate, then you might be interested in reading Pinker debate with Spelke:

https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#386

Post by mikeash » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #124

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…

I actually think Galileo vs. religion is a quite fitting analogy for these kinds of issues today. There is a prevailing ideology that, if you are seen as disagreeing with it, and if you doing so is visible enough, can get you ousted from polite society. This ideology has a set of dogmatic views about the world which may not be challenged, some of which are seen as axioms of morality. Even though a good argument can b…

Fox News is a highly rated TV channel. Right-wing talk radio has tens of millions of listeners. Our national government is currently dominated by people who disagree with this supposed "prevailing ideology."

I am baffled by the idea that liberals dominate discourse and conservatives have to hide in the shadows to avoid persecution. I see it in a lot of comments here, and half of Damore's manifesto revolved around it. Yet not only are conservatives clearly not persecuted in general, they punch well above their weight when it comes to framing discourse.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#387

Post by RealityVoid » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #378

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…

>"Choose your battles" does make sense It's a phrase that implies you should fight less. Which leaves you ill equipped at fighting when it matters to you.

I think it rather implies you should fight smarter.

Arguing with people that will only get more entrenched in their oppinion the more the argument goes is couter productive no matter how right you are. So if you need to learn that, by all means, argue with those poeple untill you get it. But afterwards, learn when to save your breath.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#388

Post by danarmak » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #345

cderwin wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? The same way we can have a genuine conversation about the best web stack to use if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it. (I don't think the fact that other Google employees supported the document is strong evidence…

> The same way we can have a genuine conversation about the best web stack to use if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it.

If a bunch of people fired for pro-ASP opinions got together, started their own company that used ASP, and produced a successful product, they would get a lot of money, everyone involved would be happy including Google who would sell them ad services, and perhaps the market would shift in favor of ASP.

If a bunch of people fired for anti-"diversity" opinions got together, started their own company that did not discriminate in favor of women and minorities in hiring, and produced a successful product, there would be a media storm and probably a boycott and demands for the company to not be allowed to use the Google Ad network.

This is why I think you're wrong when you say the reasons for firing are "exactly the same" in both cases.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#389

Post by cderwin » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #345

cderwin wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? The same way we can have a genuine conversation about the best web stack to use if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it. (I don't think the fact that other Google employees supported the document is strong evidence…

Say I work at a business that uses python exclusively. If I see my coworker get fired for suggesting we use haskell (or some other very different stack) for performance-critical code, how likely is it that I would later suggest we rewrite some stuff in go? or even python 3? or use https?

The opinion that biological differences between the sexes result in different career preferences isn't exactly wildly uncommon, extreme, or nonsensical.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#390

Post by geofft » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

brighteyes wrote: post #371

geofft wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification . The specific things he criticizes Google for doing are actions taken once minority candidates have already applied for a job, that is, once they have already expressed interest in the occupation they're applying for: they're about reducing unconscious bias in hiring, reducing the false negative rate in Go…

> Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. No, he talks about both: > 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 differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. and > These two differences in part expla…

Sure, I agree that he consciously talks about both preference and ability. Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis?

I think it's because he wants to write sentences like that one about "preferences and abilities" in an attempt to pretend that arguments about preferences translate to arguments about abilities.

That is, I would have agreed with a claim that he has two distinct theses (preferences and abilities), except that the actual purpose of the essay is indisputably about abilities, and there's no reason to also add a thesis about preferences other than to muddy the discussion about abilities. A similar essay about preferences alone wouldn't have drawn nearly as much attention because it wouldn't be suggesting that the women already at Google shouldn't be there and it wouldn't be relevant to the Google D&I programs he mentions.