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

301–310 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#301

Post by ravar »

nine_k wrote: post #267
ravar wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do agree with the general point: people need answers, so they usually keep some postulates as true without further discussion, and build reasoning on top of them. This makes a lot of pragmatic sense. Science, though, does notice its own epistemic instability, so to say. It understands its limits (reproducible phenomena on which statistic methods work), and ultimately agrees that the very base of it, the hypothesis…

Good catch, I did say it wants to provide all the answers, but I guess that wasn't exactly the idea I was trying to get at. I think the more fleshed out idea is that some people want science to provide all the answers. These people, like Sam Harris, advertise science as capable of providing the answers, but Sam Harris is not exactly a practicing scientist, although he does have a PhD.

It seems we are mostly in agreement. What I am trying to get is many people do look towards "science" and "reason" as sources of salvation. Regardless of whether or not science advertises itself that way.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#302

Post by SnacksOnAPlane »

CalChris wrote: post #283
SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, you are all very, very different. So are we. But it remains that really starting with Gingrich that conservatives have mounted a long media campaign against liberals which has been personified as Pelosi and codewritten as San Francisco values. The reverse is not the case. This was one sided but it was also Gingrich and Republicans only path to power. It worked as an election strategy but not as a governing philo…

But I feel like you're blaming the victims. It was actually people like Rupert Murdoch who set up the whole "our culture is being destroyed by PC run amok" thing, and they did it to gin up ratings for Fox News and to gain power.

We're all vulnerable to cultural brainwashing. I think that's part of what the article is complaining about. It's hard to be an iconoclast, especially when you're treated as an immoral person if you dare to think for yourself.

Again, the way to save the country is to call out all demonization of "the other". Of course I call it out when I see it, to the point where my liberal friends think I'm conservative and my conservative friends think I'm liberal.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#303

Post by throwaway8766 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #281
throwaway8766 wrote: post #64

I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a flame war). It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; y…

> but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. The situation isn't great right now, I agree. But wild exaggeration doesn't help. It just makes people that you might be able to convince that the situation isn't great dismiss everything you are saying because of that wild exaggeration. Or at least some of those people, there may be an age divide here. But the point is if…

I appreciate the feedback. That wasn't intended to be an exaggeration, that is often how I perceive the situation (look at Brendan Eich), but it is certainly fair to consider whether that perception truly reflects reality.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#304

Post by mikeash »

colordrops wrote: post #171
tclancy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the argument really lost me by mentioning feeling more comfortable in Beijing than SF. I am sure it's not intended that way, but one of the things it reminded me of is the bimonthly "Why are all these homeless people in front of my startup when I pay taxes?" posts from Valley success stories. 100 floors up in Beijing isn't exactly my idea of grounded in reality.

I believe he is mostly talking about day to day could conversations among friends, acquaintances, and coworkers. I lived in Beijing for 9 years and I can tell you those types of conversations are absolutely more free in China. It's common to tell someone they are fat or ask them how much money they make without people taking offense. You can discuss various social topics and take a less popular opinion without being…

Are they really more free, or do they just seem more free because the taboos don't quite match up, and you see them violating yours without thinking about the fact that they have their own which they're avoiding?

You say it's common to talk about weight or salary without people taking offense. Fair. On the other hand, in the US it's common to talk about the misdeeds of the President, express disagreement with the legislature, or question the government's policies. These are day to day conversations too. I don't think I've ever heard anything like that in China.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#305

Post by letsbehonest »

If you meant a single word of this essay, HN would not be a place where people are routinely banned for being critical of your portfolio companies, or for expressing any political idea that is even moderately leftist.

You're a vile hypocrite. And there's nothing to debate, there. It's just fucking true.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#306

Post by nine_k »

dmode wrote: post #274

I have no idea what this article was about. As someone who grew up in India, lived extensively in Europe and Arizona before settling down in the Bay Area, and travel to China 2-3 times a year, I find Bay Area by far to be the most open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived. And it is not even comparable. And it is borne out by simple stats. People vote with their feet. Bay Area is almost a majority minority a…

While in SF / SV, can you feel the general air of the ideas acceptable here? A small experiment: take an idea which obviously contradicts that air, and imagine rationally discussing it with people who you typically meet in SF. Will it be more than slightly uncomfortable?

Scott Alexander wrote this great piece, I leave a link to it here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

For instant enlightenment, search for the word "Bodhidharma" and read the short parable.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#307

Post by chaostheory »

dizzant wrote: post #264
chaostheory wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imo Sam could have been almost anywhere outside of San Francisco (and Berkeley), even still within the SF Bay Area metro, and still have had the same conversation he had in Beijing. Places like SF and Alabama tend to be in the extreme left or right instead of the center. It's hard talking to or even around zealots

Your comment exemplifies what the OP is criticizing. By writing off the people in SF and Alabama as "zealots," you've closed the door to reasoned debate and to educating them on their miscues. I don't disagree that people occasionally take unjustifiable stances, but that doesn't make them unreasonable people. You have to understand their reasons and convince them of yours. As someone who has lived in Alabama, I assur…

> Your comment exemplifies what the OP is criticizing.

I'm not sure how writing about my opinion is the same as shutting down discourse

> By writing off the people in SF and Alabama as "zealots," you've closed the door to reasoned debate and to educating them on their miscues.

I have lived in both the South and SF for years and I'm posting based on my experience. Yes there are always exceptions. At the same time, I don't find it useful to ignore the culture or trends at large. Different places have specific, unique cultures.

> people occasionally take unjustifiable stances, but that doesn't make them unreasonable people.

I could be wrong, but the point of Sam's post is that more people in places like SF and Alabama don't just occasionaly take strong stances. It happens a lot more often and these stances are so entrenched that they're more akin to religious beliefs, where it's just hard to even entertain alternative view points without offending people. It shuts down discourse and thought.

In terms of having conversations, I'm not on a mission to change the status quo; I just want more freedom to think & speak especially when I'm trying to relax. Logically for me, it makes little sense to be in an environment where everyone will suffer due to the topic. I'm not saying that it's wrong or bad to 'educate people on their miscues'. I'm just saying that it's not for me.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#308

Post by pmyteh »

dominotw wrote: post #296
pmyteh wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If few enough people vote, arguably yes (though that's a fairly complex question and depends a lot on what your conception of democracy is). But in essence, an election is a full-population poll: like a random sample with probability 1 of being chosen. So it's statistically maximally valid. We (political scientists) tend to squint a bit and say the opportunity to vote is equivalent to actually voting, so non-voting d…

So if am I reading this correctly. Previously you said "any self selected polling is meaningless" Now you are saying "Self selected polling is meaningful when people who didn't self select had the opportunity to do so" . Ok. So by that definition the poll I linked, everyone had the opportunity to participate in the debate, theoretically. What makes it meaningless ? PS: Fixing democracy ect is not interesting to me in…

Because I, for one, didn't know it was happening and therefore could not participate. My chance of having my opinion count was zero. So pretty much by definition the poll is not representative of the universe of people-who-include-me. And by induction of all the other people who had no chance to participate.

If you want to know more, I recipient looking up the 1936 Literary Digest poll for US President, one of the most famous screwups caused by non-random sampling: https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.h...

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#309

Post by conanbatt »

xocyabencl wrote: post #277
conanbatt wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godwin's law came fast on this one! A part of me is uninterested in reading it because I find other topics way more interesting. But a part of me also feels I can't read it. Because if I read it and I agree with it, I will have to balance honesty and integrity with oppression. All my life I held all my controversial opinions quite openly, but this was the first time I actually fear being controversial. I'm with Volta…

Godwin's law exists because "something we both agree is wrong" is a useful north star in an argument. Edit: If someone makes a general claim like "nobody should be fired for agreeing with any text x", it makes sense to test that claim by putting an extreme value in for x.

Im not criticizing, if there is one thing the nazis did right was being a never ending example of what not to be/do.

That said, I have not read Mein Kampf and its a similar situation. Is everything in that book ideological garbage? Maybe, maybe not. I actually dont know what its about!

But trying to find that out in public can get you beat and people will clap in encouragement if that happened.

Hell, I would be even afraid to google that book in amazon.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#310

Post by kelukelugames »

jordanpg wrote: post #68

> This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate of hate and bigotry?

I'm okay with comedians writing bad jokes or telling them during open mic. Our society is somewhat tolerant of that. Al Franken did get elected after his rape joke was published. Though in hindsight that is an awful example.

But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed.

So I think Sam lacks empathy. Try this thought exercise. Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person? How well do you think that will go over in SF, HN, or America?

Post reply on HN