E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#811

Post by observation » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:00 PM UTC

ihm wrote: post #699

TeMPOraL wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be, but this is exactly why politics is toxic. People start to bicker about who gets what piece of a pie before it's even baked, and they're willing to kill each other and destroy the oven over that, even though without that pie, everyone will starve.

But it's clear who will have access to these technologies once they exist -- those who can pay the most. Access to such technologies will probably also give the user better economic outcomes, so there's a very legitimate fear that such technologies will significantly widen the already wide chasm separating rich from poor. The kind of argument you're making only stands to benefit those who will get access to these tec…

This could be wrong, I am not a biological scientist.

I suspect in practice this is a non-issue, a kind of fake argument we like to make because it sounds right.

I think genetic improvements don't give massive improvements in a single healthy individual, that kind of technology is science fiction and would require many iterations of experimental use over many generations. So boosts of +20 or +200 IQ points or +20 or +200 attractiveness points is off the table.

What we have the power to do is reduce incident of genetic disease and very modestly improve outcomes for more healthy functioning brains.

This levels the playing field between the rich and poor because the rich hit the optimum for genetic improvement very fast (having already a lion's share of genetic advantages to start with), then they must experience diminishing returns for their money. It is likely that most common genetic improvements are also the most widely spread about in the population, the opposite of your vision.

Now having foolishly stuck my neck out I shall ask Gwern whether I am full of it. ;-)

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#812

Post by bduerst » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:04 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #789

bduerst wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[2] is the one of the most recent criticisms of the Big Five method, which is the crux used in [1]. If [2] cited every paper that used the Big Five method incorrectly as biological factor analysis, it would be in the hundreds. Number of citations is terrible metric to defend a paper because the reason [2] has less citations is because [2] was published 3 years ago, while [1] was published almost a decade ago. Appeals…

[1] had almost 100 citation in its first 3 years, while [2] still has no citation by anyone else other than its author. If [2] really had discredited an entire field of research, I'd imagine that anyone at all would talk about it even once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#813

Post by observation » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:33 PM UTC

edmccard wrote: post #770

TeMPOraL wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not rich and yet I'm making the argument, because it seems to me that a) life-improving inventions that can scale eventually scale to everyone, even if initially they were limited to the well-off, and b) (and this may be controversial) all in all, still I find it strictly better to have a part of the population with access to life extension than nobody with access to it.

>still I find it strictly better to have a part of the population with access to life extension than nobody with access to it. But that's already the case. There are people right now who will live longer than others because they have access to better healthcare.[1] Why should it be strictly better (addressing only your point b) for the situation to change from "people with an average lifespan plus people who live 10…

Some foggy thoughts.

To me it's all contingent on whether your brain is healthy, functioning properly, ideally at an optimum. People who talk of Life Extension say that improving 'healthspan' and lifespan are connected.

Probably society needs a range of brain ages to function, or has done until now at least. That said there is no possible utility to people getting degenerative brain disease, I don't see the point of keeping the vehicle if the driver is dead.

Also consider the tasks a person does in life. A blue collar man dies much younger than rich woman, I think 20-30+ years. Some of that may be avoidable through better healthcare or technology or simply unavoidable because of genetics but it's also hard to imagine intense physical labour doesn't affect your metabolism in such a way that it ends your life sooner.

As a blue collar worker I'm becoming aware of this drawback..!

On the other side I know workers who've worked physically demanding jobs who are in their 90s and are still trotting about, have full head of dark hair.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#814

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #804

dguaraglia wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've done a bait and switch on me. No I haven't. > ... that has nothing to do with the tech industry and they can't change that... So what you are saying is that: a) We don't know if this is a cultural issue or not b) So the tech industry shouldn't do anything about it Huh? > You have studies trying to raise kids as neutrally as possible and still finding boys prefer trucks and girls prefer dolls. It's definitely…

I'm saying the disparity is due to personality difference. Which, even if cultural, can't be changed by the tech industry. I find it very implausible that the differences are cultural at any level. And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM becaus…

> And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out.

You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Maybe this is just an intuitive perception that you have, rather than a fact? I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist.

> Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people have the freedom to pursue their actual interests.

So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? Unless you use the word 'culture' in a very narrow definition that only includes things such as food, drinks and folk dances.

Communist countries, especially Russia, made a big deal about erasing gender inequality (they saw gender roles as another form of oppression.) That's the main reason why Russia had such a high participation of women in STEM, it wasn't because "parents would force them because they were poor."

I'm all for having a conversation about this, but are you willing to take new evidence and process it, rather than keep pushing your intuitive notion?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#815

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #748

tomtheelder wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick studies that sort of reinforced h…

The reason the Damore stuff is so insane is because the science he cited is abundant and well replicated over decades! Look at this piece from Stanford Medical School in the spring! http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b... Or here, from 2013: http://atavisionary.com/study-index/intelligence-psychometri... There is an abundance of highly cited research that backs up what Damore carefully stated…

There's also an equal or bigger amount of science proving that gender "interests" are driven in a large part by cultural background. As I linked elsewhere, Communist Russia used to have a huge participation of women in "STEM" fields, while Europe and the US were still moving from single-income families to the current standard of working professional women.

There's nothing we can do to fix the - alleged - biological differences between men and women. There's a lot we can do to fix the cultural factors leading to gender inequality. So why not work on the stuff we can work on rather than assuming "awwww, why bother, if there's some chance it might be biological?"

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#816

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #805

dguaraglia wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Goog…

>Give examples. Read page 6 of Damore's memo. He gives a number of very serious examples. >Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are f…

> What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men.

Thing is, you don't have these numbers. And you are making them up, to push your narrative. Which is another massive flaw on Damore's argument: he's trying to solve a problem he doesn't even know exists.

> Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and setting arbitrary quotas.

Damore suggested based on assumptions. I find that very, very, VERY difficult to defend.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#817

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #795

dguaraglia wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Goog…

> Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.

> Mandatory gender quotas.

Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases.

> Women-only lectures, events and benefits.

So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take.

> Why does it matter. Thats not the point.

That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#818

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:47 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #796

dguaraglia wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I seriously doubt that. The public would generally be conflicted about crucifying a woman in the name of women, it would have not arised easily to public knowledge. To deepen the understanding of the situation, men and women withing google might have shown public agreement of some level with the essay and they havent been fire. People have done threats and at…

> I seriously doubt that.

And that's your prerogative. But it also makes the rest of your argument just conjecture. Making a huge deal about "inequality" based on conjecture is probably not the best way to spend your time.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#819

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:51 PM UTC

backpropaganda wrote: post #759

dguaraglia wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. > Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. The problem is lately a lot of people make claims based on nothing…

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. This is a factually incorrect. Please try to introspect whether you're saying this because you want Damore to be wrong, instead of attempting to ascertain whether he was actually wrong.

Oh, I introspected enough. I think you need to start doing some introspection on why Damore launches a pre-emptive attack on a non-existing problem, and why you are buying into his argument.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#820

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:52 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #751

dguaraglia wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. > Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. The problem is lately a lot of people make claims based on nothing…

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies They weren't. In fact you don't even need to look at studies, you can look at raw standardized test scores and see this is true.

I keep bringing this up: if you applied the same standards in Communist Russia, you would've gotten completely different results. Turns out it's not just Nature that defines behavior, there's a lot of Nurture going on in there.