Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#251

Post by ravar »

nine_k wrote: post #206

One of the things often overlooked is how our (American) culture is very much driven by religion. Note that the religion is not necessarily some version of Christianity. The overwhelming religious movement rarely named could be called "progressivism". A religion, as opposed to other forms, usually has postulates you may not doubt, words you may not say, etc. That is, it constraints rational approaches in the area of…

I would add to this by positing this is not just American culture. I think all people are religious by nature, even the most rational scientist has their inexplicable religious rituals.

My thought on this is that the world is simply too complicated to operate in, and everyone is looking for a system that has the answers. It is a form of compression. You don't have to handle the flow of complexity because someone else tells you the correct move.

Catholicism did this, it said that it had all the answers. Science wants to provide all the answers, and tries to advertise itself as such. However, as the post modernists identified science only gives you the facts, but there are infinite ways to interpret the facts. You need a value structure, a religion maybe, to interpret the facts. I think this is the religion that you have identified.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#252

Post by ixtli »

ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

It's critical to understand that it's not an intentional simplification. Altman and the rest of the rarified VC-connected people on both coasts are very, very disconnected from what its like to live in the lower or middle classes and especially what it's like to be a part of a systemically marginalized community.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#253

Post by maxerickson »

Cshelton wrote: post #245
throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

To add to that as someone who grew up in Dallas, Texas, has lived in what many consider the most "liberal" parts of the U.S., and now back in Dallas (Texas forever); The thing I hear the most from people who have moved to Dallas recently or visiting is "Everyone here is so nice". I hear it all the time. Even work colleges who are in town for business. I heard one say a few weeks ago how nice people are here after som…

I think, in Texas at least, don't know about other areas of the south, many people will be surprised from how open people are in the cities. Now, in rural areas... yeah, no promise there. Rural people will love you at first site, but if you mention anything anything that contradicts their bible or the right to have a gun, most likely not. The cities surprise people who visit here though. They were not expecting the acceptance of things they thought everyone in the south was against.

Is the contradiction here intentional self parody?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#254

Post by fvdessen »

amdavidson wrote: post #153
amsheehan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about whataboutism?

Just because a person uses the words "What about" does not make their argument whataboutism. Their argument is 100% relevant to the sentiment that was expressed. If the stated benefit of excluding one group to allow for the free expression of the other is increased scientific discourse, how do we balance that against the loss of discourse from the excluded?

Sam is asking people to be more inclusive of different ideas, not excluding one group for the benefit of the other.

I don't quite get how one jumps from 'we have to tolerate different ideas' to 'people will be excluded'. How does tolerating different ideas excludes people ?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#255

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

olympus wrote: post #123
CPLX wrote: post #29

California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember. Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.

This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway. NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's comp…

"If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway."

Do you actually genuinely believe these absolutist statements, or you make them just coz they make for good sound bites?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#256

Post by leroy_masochist »

olympus wrote: post #123
CPLX wrote: post #29

California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember. Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.

This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway. NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's comp…

Well that, and he runs a company whose value proposition is very explicitly tied to SV being the best place to start a startup, so it would be kind of awkward if he moved.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#257

Post by SnacksOnAPlane »

CalChris wrote: post #229
SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you associating those douchebags with the south? Newt I get, but aren't the rest of them in NYC? The real divide in this country is rural vs. urban. Cities in the south are plenty progressive, and rural areas in the rest of the country are plenty conservative. I've lived in Boston and Atlanta, and Atlanta is a much more tolerant, friendly place.

Roy Moore and Newt Gingrich are about as South as South gets and they definitely campaigned against San Francisco values. Newt Gingrich essentially defined the modern Republican Party's approach to campaigning and governing.

First, Roy Moore lost. It wasn't a resounding loss, but he did lose.

Second, acting like an entire region as a monoculture is stupid and unproductive. We're all very, very different, and while there are some trends that are more prevalent in a region, that doesn't mean that the people who believe those things are backwards. Perhaps it means that you just haven't tried to see things from their perspective.

The lack of empathy and the unwillingness to consider that other people have different backgrounds and codes of ethics and a dogmatic insistence that "this way is the right way" is what's killing our cohesion as a country. And, as a whole, I've seen more of the "live and let live" philosophy in Atlanta than in a whole lot of supposedly liberal places.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#258

Post by bjl »

blfr wrote: post #180
papaf wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

century of poverty, slavery, and hundred million deaths I am genuinely curious about where you get the figure of 100 million deaths from. I also believe that all the societes that had slaves were capitalist ones. But we can both agree that communism leads to poverty although the poorest countries in the world are failed states rather than communist: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-poorest-countries-in...

Black Book of Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

In other words, one of the least respected books in modern historical scholarship.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#259

Post by jhbadger »

papaf wrote: post #175
blfr wrote: post #103

We need to accept that some of these ideas ... are inherently dangerous. Maybe but somehow we don't focus on dangerous ideas. Communism is by far the most dangerous idea devised in the west. It infected dozens of societies and led them to a century of poverty, slavery, and hundred million deaths. Yet someone who's open about being a communist won't really be ostracised in SF. Communist flags are available on Amazon.…

century of poverty, slavery, and hundred million deaths I am genuinely curious about where you get the figure of 100 million deaths from. I also believe that all the societes that had slaves were capitalist ones. But we can both agree that communism leads to poverty although the poorest countries in the world are failed states rather than communist: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-poorest-countries-in...

The death toll of communism is debatable because a lot of deaths in the Soviet Union and China were due to famine, and people can argue how much of it was due to the inefficiency of collective farming, or deliberate starving of people the government didn't like, or just bad luck.

As for "all societies that had slaves were capitalist" -- it is unclear what you mean by that. Certainly the US was capitalist and had slavery, but many (indeed most) pre-capitalist societies had slavery.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#260

Post by ak_yo »

throwaway8766 wrote: post #222
ak_yo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me. It's not that you can…

I totally empathize with this perspective. It would never be appropriate for coworkers to criticize (directly or indirectly) your lifestyle, identity, or personal decisions. With regards to your statement "I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.", in many ways I totally respect that concern. But…

That's totally fair -- and I appreciate that you're willing to engage seriously about these things!

Your last point is well-taken. It may even be the case these days that the majority of people who hold views similar to yours think the way you do. But I think we need to take into account the uncertainty that people in these situations face. It's hard to know what the other person is thinking -- and if all you know is that person's opinion, it's hard to know what's going on when you're not looking. Bigotry is often dressed up in talk and behavior that seems polite, even respectful at first glance, but that is ultimately materially harmful.

For example, I think a lot of LGBTQ people from religious backgrounds have had an experience of being told that their family or community will "love the sinner, but hate the sin" -- and then subsequently being subjected to unfair and harmful treatment (bullying, psychological abuse, ostracism, being disowned).

Post reply on HN