What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#61

Post by tempestn » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 12:50 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #53

jonahrd wrote: post #5

> It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Well having taken a lesson from the article, I think he's purely mistaken with this point. (As well as divisive, insensitive, etc..) Quite the hubris to make that assumption!

There is the concept of a polymath. There is overlap in that group with autodidacts (people who can teach themselves about anything if they only want it badly enough). I think Paul may be falling prey to a correlation issue here. If you are an autodidact and a polymath, are you more likely to end up as a scientist or engineer, or as a professor of French Literature? Very few people in the CS program understood why I…

If you're saying that more polymaths are likely to end up as physics professors than French professors, doesn't that actually support the point he's making?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#62

Post by spumoni » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 12:54 AM UTC

egdod wrote: post #26

“It’s ok to be white” is racist hate speech. Does that count?

Oh, it gets even worse. You can't just not talk about being white. You can't talk about preserving a future for white children.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#63

Post by chess93 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

My belief is that people believe whatever they want to believe. If you are liberal it is because you want to be liberal. Alternatively you might just not want to be conservative. Same for the other direction. Naturally formed beliefs are just an afterthought. It goes without saying that this might not apply to everyone or to every belief.

For the record, I recognize that perhaps I believe this belief strictly because I want to believe it. I also think many people don't want to believe it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#64

Post by kaens » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 12:59 AM UTC

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

- Karl Popper, Open Society and it's Enemies, 1945

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#65

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:00 AM UTC

undefined1 wrote: post #40

jonahrd wrote: post #5

> It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Well having taken a lesson from the article, I think he's purely mistaken with this point. (As well as divisive, insensitive, etc..) Quite the hubris to make that assumption!

Paul's response to this: "Actually, for illustrative purposes I did include a few things you can't say, but I stuck to domain-specific ones. Within university faculties, this is the great unmentionable. And look at how much trouble I got in for bringing it up. (So far no one from the US car industry has complained though, perhaps because I mentioned explicitly that a heresy was coming, instead of just inlining it.) T…

That's a bad analogy, though. In one case, you have a group who has to examine, and a group that has to discover. They both employ high-level critical-thinking and creative-thinking skills, but their output of novel work under even normal circumstances differs due to the nature of their work.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#66

Post by yourbandsucks » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #30

Having seen many articles on this topic show up on HN, and this one in particular recur like a comet every year, I’d like to note a trend I feel like I see in the HN comments every time. First I see a highly upvoted top-level comment talking about how tragic it is that thoughtcrime is such a capital offense these days, and lamenting that surely the HN thought police will be coming for their head, but they still feel…

It's possible that such comments are popular here specifically because there are a lot of people who feel they can't say it at work. Catharsis behind pseudonymity.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#67

Post by spumoni » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

topmonk wrote: post #24

iconjack wrote: post #17

Things you can't say in the tech world, 2019: * global warming is junk science * there are approximately two genders * Trump is a great president * the US is not a racist country * Apple sucks Edit: If you're one of the many downvoters, who presumably disagree with this, I dare you to say any of these things if you work for a tech company.

African Americans consist of only 13% of the population yet commit over half of the crimes. Asians and Whites score much higher on IQ tests than African Americans and Latinos. Women have innately different interests than men.

Researchers are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans a vast majority of the time.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#68

Post by spumoni » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

john-radio wrote: post #8

> Suppose in the future there is a movement to ban the color yellow. Proposals to paint anything yellow are denounced as "yellowist"... This made me remember the essay "Against Murderism" by Scott Alexander. If someone would like to read a somewhat similar article to what's posted here, written by (in my opinion) a devastatingly better essayist than Graham with a lot more knowledge about human psychology and understa…

And if you would like to visit a place that is tacitly backed by Scott Alexander as a place to discuss cultural phenomena with a wide variety of backgrounds, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#69

Post by jstewartmobile » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

iconjack wrote: post #17

Things you can't say in the tech world, 2019: * global warming is junk science * there are approximately two genders * Trump is a great president * the US is not a racist country * Apple sucks Edit: If you're one of the many downvoters, who presumably disagree with this, I dare you to say any of these things if you work for a tech company.

- MSM is a propaganda organ.

- psychology is a pseudocience focused on acclimating people to--rather than rescuing people from--systemic abuse.

- Israel / AIPAC has deeply penetrated our government, and has been using us to settle scores in the middle east for at least two decades.

- until you personally repeat it in the lab, what most call "science" is actually a megachurch religion--much more about money than truth or salvation.

- all of the tranny-mogrification "science" is of this sort. See David Reimer story. First, bad psychology to cover up a botched circumcision. Then another layer of bad psychology for good measure. Now that there are both medical and political industries around it, we'll surely have an endless supply of bogus papers to keep the wheels of the gravy trains well oiled.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#70

Post by voidhorse » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #59

voidhorse wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s a very naive and limited conception of intelligence that equates intellegence strictly with mathematical reasoning (and perhaps experimentation). There are many forms of intellect. For example, plenty of people that excel in mathematics and physics have a horrible time of expressing themselves linguistically and are usually not very good at socializing. And let’s be really honest then: the vast majority of p…

Yes, I equate intelligence with reasoning. For me, and realistically most everyone else, intelligence is the ability to reason, formulate solutions to problems and to quickly grasp concepts. There are a host of other skills that are worthwhile and desirable and whatever else, but why pretend that they are the same thing as intelligence? I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your skeptics comment. Edit: you added…

Your differentiation between "intelligence" and "other skills" partially refutes Paul's point in the article. If we were to take your definition, Paul's saying that physicists, because they're better at ratiocination should be good enough at french literature to get a PHD, but based on your claim french literature involves a host of abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence (not strict ratiocination or problem solving) so how could we possibly conclude from the fact that physicists are better at ratiocination that they're therefore better equipped to learn about French literature than french lit profs are to learn about ratiocination and subsequently physics?

It's also predicated on an imprecise and singular use of the term "reason". Do you mean calculation? Or do you mean analogical thinking (the construction of metaphors, "grasping concepts"), for instance, both of which could be called forms of reason but both of which are very different.

It's a totally inane question.

Claims like Paul's are just the intellectual equivalent of chest puffing. Don't get roped into the stupidity. This kind of attitude causes divisions and turns you into a prideful douche. It's indicative most of all that the author takes an extreme pride in whatever he takes to be his "intellect." Goliaths' waiting for their Davids.

As for the skeptics, what I mean is that working scientists usually can't engage in radical questioning--this is left to mathematicians (in the pure sense) and philosophers. They need to have faith, just like everyone else, that their systems work. While the application of reason provides probabilistic assurances around certainty you leave the realm of complete, inviolable certainty as soon as you exit the heaven of pure theory and turn it into practice.