Live data from Hacker News

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

721–730 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#721
post #703
post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive? I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics (which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension? Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be cal…

> Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in the name of progress. I don't really know what to make of your interpretation of Altman's statement. He was making the point that if a physicist has homophobic views, we should not dismiss their contributions to physics for that reason alone. Put another way, we should be…

Remember that Altman is most likely paraphrasing his interpretation of a hypothetical person or class of people responding to the idea. So parsing Altman's quote too deeply might not be useful. It's entirely possible no one ever actually said those words.

People tend to "tune" the details of a story to fit their argument. Especially when they feel aggrieved.

Also, the comment assumes a certain supremacy of science (or physics) over social concerns which everyone might not agree with. Physics is wonderful. But as far as improving people's lives, decrying and eliminating homophobia might also be a very important thing to do. So to say "I'm willing to sacrifice the well-being of gay people so physics can progress..." Not everyone may agree that the exchange is worth it. And that's valid.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How grounded is this in data? It is very grounded in data. I have had college classes on Intro to Psychology , Social Psychology and Negotiation and Conflict Management . I spent a lot of time in therapy and have done a lot of reading on social subjects and so forth. I was a military wife and history major and I have an AA in Humanities. The one urban planning conference I managed to attend, I went to all the social…

While you certainly have a lot of experience and impressive education, I’m not sure how this shows how willing people are to commit violence. Or whether this is a significant probability. Or even an attention worthy probability. Through your studies have you been able to identify evidence for a range or risk / odds ratio difference of haters to commit violence vs the standard population? This is certainly hard to qua…

No, I am not unwilling to discuss this. I just sometimes hit my limit for putting up with being dismissed and treated with contempt on HN for being the wrong kind of nerd.

As I already stated as clearly as I know how, violence is not required to do serious harm to a person. To try to elucidate:

I have a life threatening medical condition and was also homeless for nearly six years. I was quite open about that on HN and other forums. My only goal was to find a means to earn money online as a solution to my situation.

I got a lot of flak from people in forums who wanted me to shut up about my problems because they liked wearing their goodness on their sleeve, we're unwilling to help me in any way and my presence made them uncomfortable. I often could not even get answers to my questions. I was accused of panhandling the internet and my goal of learning to make money online was completely dismissed by many people, making it that much harder to accomplish.

Treating a seriously ill homeless person like their desire to earn a living is not valid is not far from allowing someone to die by standing by and doing for them. You could compare it to denying blacks treatment at a white hospital, which is exactly how the black inventor of blood transfusions died following an accident where he couldn't get the blood he needed because he was the wrong color.

People who are in certain categories can be at significant risk if being egregiously harmed by the actions or inactions of other people, without violence being any part of it. People are shockingly comfortable with such things, which is an underlying principle that keeps things like racism alive.

We can, for example, measure harm to African Americans in terms of both trillions of dollars and in terms of disease and death. Most people don't really want to hear it. Recent articles calling for reparations to Blacks get routinely dismissed as "meh, everyone has been taken advantage of at some point." The idea of reparations has no traction, though the ongoing death toll for African Americans is routinely in the news.

The more eye catching incidents where Blacks get shot and killed by cops is really a very minor portion of the death toll. A much larger portion comes from historical redlining and White NIMBYism, which has forced people of color into neighborhoods with terrible air quality and substandard housing. Respiratory problems have gone up dramatically and the effect of living in neighborhoods with terrible air quality can be measured in dollars, incidence of disease and mortality.

A study in India found that male children receive slightly better care than female children. For example, a sick boy was more likely to be taken to a doctor the same day. A sick girl was more likely to be sent to bed with plans to see a doctor in the morning if she did not improve.

Girls in this study were absolutely not being abused. In most cases, they weren't even really neglected. They just weren't doted on like boys.

The consequences of these small differences in treatment could be measured in terms of mortality. Girls had a measurably higher death rate.

Marginalized people with any kind of survival instinct are wise to give a wide berth to anyone giving voice to open hostility to their kind. Such people can have a great deal of power to help them into the grave without ever lifting a finger to commit violence, sometimes simply by not lifting a finger to help when they need it. Often, the rest of the world will look on and see no wrong doing.

Having been subjected to such treatment as a homeless person, it us both horrifying and deeply psychologically scarring. My fundamental trust in humans has been irreparably harmed. And homelessness is curable. You get off the street, you aren't homeless anymore. But you don't stop being gay, trans, Black etc.

The most charitable interpretation I can find for how others behaved towards me is that they are incredibly ignorant of some things and blind to the serious consequences of their actions and inaction. That was not much comfort at the time it was happening and has done little to help me make my peace with it.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#723
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not refuting his point... you're demonstrating it.

The main thrust of the argument seems to be that we should do our best to stop censorship. I'm arguing that we probably shouldn't. Our society is not really equipped to handle the free exchange of ideas at this point.

Let me be blunt: I don't trust you enough to make that decision.

Let me be even more blunt: I suspect what you really mean is simply that people who disagree with you should be shut up.

Let me be a bit philosophical: Unless you are so arrogant as to believe that you are right about everything right now, the set of people you believe should shut up includes both your future and past self.

Perhaps you should accord to others the rights you are so anxious to claim for yourself.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#724

> 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?

Have people forgotten about what happened to Alan Turing?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That there are observable personality differences between men and women, and we shouldn't expect perfect gender ratios. This assumption always bothers me. What do you think defines behavior? Is it purely culture, or purely biology? How do you rule out culture when you don't have a culture that promotes equality?

It seems perfectly plausible to me that it's biological. E.g. identical twins have similar personality measures. But it does it matter? Even if it is cultural, it still disputes the feminist argument that the disparity is due to sexism in tech. Or the effectiveness of Google's diversity programs that Damore was arguing against.

> Even if it is cultural, it still disputes the feminist argument that the disparity is due to sexism in tech.

This sentence contradicts itself. If it is cultural, then it'd be most likely based on sexist stereotypes that we force on our kids from an early age (mind you, when I say sexist I don't mean in the "actively nasty towards a gender" way, but in the "you define people by their gender even before you know them" way.)

If that's the case, then that sexist behavior permeates the culture, which means tech companies are not going to be devoid of it. Which would make the disparity based on sexism in tech (and everywhere else.)

I think people get overly defensive about being called "sexist" because they perceive it as an attack on them. It is not. The moment you realize that, it's so much easier to get out of the "them vs. us" mentality and actually take constructive criticism better.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But lets play along, lets say that effectively no single person at google would voluntarily let himself work with Damore. Why do you think that is? Because 99.9% disagree with his essay? Or because he became a target for scorn in the public eye that overpunished him? I'll give you a hint: if you are a female engineer, and you are put as a report for Damore, would you ever have a lingering feeling he might be biased…

> I'll give you a hint: if you are a female engineer, and you are put as a report for Damore, would you ever have a lingering feeling he might be biased against you if he decided to promote your male peer instead of you? I don't know. Maybe. What we do know if that if someone else shares the same opinion of Damore within google, we will never hear about it , and the bias effect you attribute will still happen but the…

> Not only that, but it might have exacerbated it: someone with the fear of being perceived bias and losing his job will want as few women in his team as possible. How about that possibility?

Someone being actively nasty towards women in his team just because they are women will most likely get fired, so that's a self-limiting problem.

> He said it multiple days before he got fired. The timeline doesn't add up!

What timeline? There's only one timeline:

1) He releases a "manifesto" expressing his opinion

2) Someone reads the manifesto, is disgusted and a controversy ensues

3) Media picks up on the controversy

4) Google is forced into a really shitty position by being asked a bunch of times what they are going to do

5) Damore gets fired

6) Damore goes to "men's rights advocate" Stefan Molyneaux podcast and wears his "Goolag" shirt. He does a bit of media, tweets out some really ambiguous tweets.

7) The world forgets about Damore.

So where's the flaw in the timeline?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is a non-sequitur as much as focusing on different concerns. While it is true that the RW statement doesn't imply that all Muslims are terrorists, it does imply that it is ok to ban ALL Muslims if some are terrorists. The liberal position is that this is NOT ok; we feel that the cost of blocking innocent people from entering the country is not worth the cost of allowing some possible terrorists in. T…

>While it is true that the RW statement doesn't imply that all Muslims are terrorists, it does imply that it is ok to ban ALL Muslims if some are terrorists. The liberal position is that this is NOT ok; we feel that the cost of blocking innocent people from entering the country is not worth the cost of allowing some possible terrorists in. I'm about to speak one of the "heresies" that sama referred to in the third pa…

This one is a factual question which should be discussed openly. Shutting down the conversation doesn't change opinions, it just hardens them, drives them underground, and makes it clear that we do not tolerate open debate.

That said, the majority of studies that I have seen disagree with your calculation. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-ef... is typical. Even low skilled immigrants have a small but net positive effect on the net wealth of US citizens. But the effect is small, and there are some who are impacted negatively. Particularly among blacks and teenagers who have been displaced from bottom rung jobs by immigrants who are willing to work harder for less, and still feel lucky because their lives are better than where they came from.

Due to that I am happy with having relative open borders for immigration. But I can understand why others might be concerned.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability. I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women ar…

What if Damore had been a woman. What do you think would have happened then. This is just en exercise in public outrage, not in morality, responsibility or the application of ideals.

Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I don't really understand this perception that "women get away with everything". The legal department would have as much of an argument to fire a female Damore as they'd have a male Damore.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability. I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women ar…

You're not convincing me when your argument is literally "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." Which isn't true anyway. As I said, his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently.

> "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it."

I never said it was illegal. I said it was stupid to do it at work. There's a lot of things that while not illegal, are stupid to do at work and will get you fired.

> his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently.

His opinions demonstrated that he holds biases against women and minorities, and he thinks the company is doing the wrong thing by hiring more of both. Whether those biases are justified by his "science" (they aren't) or not, is neither here nor there, he's a walking legal landmine. On that basis alone, it would be perfectly justified to fire him.

Now, should he be able to express his opinions? Sure! Talk to your friends at a bar. Find people you think are like-minded and discuss this. Better yet: find people you know to hold the opposite opinion and discuss it with them. Don't fucking spread something company-wide and then complain when you get fired.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#730
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, some ideas are inherently dangerous. An idea of atoms splitting leads to an atomic bomb, for instance. Some substances, tools, machines, etc are also inherently dangerous, and can't be made not to be. Does this mean that we should never use a saw, light a fire, or discuss [insert a controversial topic here]? Somehow people came up with protocols to work with inherently dangerous material things that lower the ri…

> Yes, some ideas are inherently dangerous. An idea of atoms splitting leads to an atomic bomb, for instance. You're missing the parent's point. An idea not being acted upon is not dangerous. The idea of splitting atoms is not dangerous and the atomic bomb is not dangerous: An atomic bomb getting built (the idea being acted upon) is dangerous. Why are full disclosure policies recommended by security researchers? Why…

> An idea not being acted upon is not dangerous.

A gun not being fired is not dangerous. A deadly virus that is contained is not dangerous. Ideas are seeds; action is impossible without them. All you're doing is pushing the responsibility one step further; instead of preventing the spread of ideas we have to prevent their effects. Now instead of dealing with the cause, we have to deal with the symptoms.

A meme like "immigrants are the source of all our problems" is a dangerous idea, because of the actions it can directly cause. Preventing its spread is just good mental hygiene.

Cults are another place where ideas are most certainly dangerous; but this time for the individual. So is any religion/ideology people are willing to die for.

Most ideas are not dangerous. Also, I might be completely wrong; if I lived in Galileo's time, I might be claiming heliocentricity is a dangerous idea.

Post reply on HN