Live data from Hacker News

Adversarial Collaboration

edge.org

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#131
post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#132
post #72
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social justice is not an innocent word. It is charged with a political agenda.

Of course justice involves political agendas. How do you think poll taxes and literacy tests were eliminated? We don't even have to go that far back -- the legal recognition (& protection) of same-sex marriages is something even zoomers have a memory of. People opposed to social justice aren't apolitical or morally neutral. Banning books, getting educators fired, and forcibly de-transitioning children are all charged…

Trying to prevent children from permanent chemical/physical hormone changes to treat a mental condition is also a form of social justice.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#133

Somewhat surprised to see Jeffery Epstein's "charity" still showing up on the front page of HN

(Edit: I interpreted your comment as asking why we'd allow this post to stay on HN's front page. The answer to that is below. If that wasn't your point, please ignore.)

On HN, we generally go by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., and generally try to avoid guilt by association. These points both follow from the principle of intellectual curiosity that we're trying to optimize for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....

Reality is messier than simple heuristics, but I think the current article is a good test case. Can one be interested in Kahneman's views on adversarial collaboration and have a curious conversation about them while in no way endorsing the heinous Epstein? Clearly one can.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#134
post #58

Kahneman hedges just a bit in his talk: " To a good first approximation, people simply don't change their minds about anything that matters." Trying to explain the small number of people who do change their minds, David McRaney has an interesting book out called How Minds Change.[0] And I imagine there are people who change minds, even outside his model. People who change their minds when it doesn't seem to help them…

I've seen a strange case, where someone argued blindly, but the next day advocated for the change. He didn't say it was his own idea but he didn't told he changed his mind :)

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mostly an excuse to accept fewer Asians, just as personality and interviews used to be one to not accept Jews.

So they care about social justice, which is bad, and they are only pretending to care about social justice, which is bad, and they use it as cover to do the opposite of social justice, which is also bad. So, higher education is definately bad, and whether social justice is bad or not depends on whether you open the box and find out if the cat is a Republican or a Democrat?

[deleted]

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#136
post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

> It appears this is true of academic and scientific disciplines as much as anywhere else.

Sure, of course!

That's why "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And we can be happy with at least that!

In anything outside science there is no progress at all. Humans in general behave exactly the same since thousands of years.

You could read some thousands of years old drama and the story will be very familiar. Lust, greed and power struggles, and the other typical human traits.

We did not manage to solve even one none technical problem since we came down the trees. But that's nothing unexpected actually given we're a horde of apes. I'm old enough to know that nothing will ever change as we had already more than enough time to easily mange at least some "humanity scale" issues by now. But we as a species are seemingly bound to our ape nature.

The few statistical outliers here and there could not and can not change the course of events. They never had any realistic chance. Because they're outnumbered by the billions. That's just how it is.

Eugenics would be a small chance. Or we'll become some day the "wet bootloader" of some truly intelligent beings. But both is not very likely.

Or, of course, we just kill our species eventually by some stupid mistake, or just out of rage; which is frankly the most likely outcome in the long run given human nature and its current technological possibilities.

There are no other realistic outcomes one could come up. Apes will stay apes. Likely to their very end. Time already proved that we just can't do better.

Now, anybody who likes to argue that I'm too pessimistic needs to explain away why there wasn't any substantial progress up until now (besides tech, which is something almost exclusively driven by singular people). I say it's all about human nature, psychological phenomena and that. Which is something coded by our common gene pool. And that's something that just can't change on any time scale that is meaningful to humanity as it is. (Besides doing this through tech, which isn't a realistic option at all given said human nature. My guess here would be that it's more likely that we'll go "the Borg path" than that we would try to re-engineer our-selfs to become a more generally friendly and intelligent species). Like said, it's imho already proved by time that we don't want maximize joy for everybody. Quite the contrary actually! We seek ever since only more efficient ways to extinguish our enemies. That's the one constant in human history. Actually, even most of our technological breakthroughs are direct results of this pursuit. Go figure…

Hmm, now I have the opening scene of "2001: A Space Odyssey" on my head. Not sure why.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#137
post #72
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social justice is not an innocent word. It is charged with a political agenda.

Of course justice involves political agendas. How do you think poll taxes and literacy tests were eliminated? We don't even have to go that far back -- the legal recognition (& protection) of same-sex marriages is something even zoomers have a memory of. People opposed to social justice aren't apolitical or morally neutral. Banning books, getting educators fired, and forcibly de-transitioning children are all charged…

It is possible to largely be for social justice while disagreeing with some of the beliefs of the modern Social Justice movement. I know scientists that fall on both sides of the debate when it comes to issues like MIT cancelling Dorian Abbot's lecture or Thomas Jefferson HS changing their admissions policies. I don't know any scientists that have any of the "anti-SJW" beliefs that you've listed.

I also know some 18 year old robotics kids that are just truly indifferent about this stuff. I suspect some of them will grow out of it, but even for the ones that don't, I don't think that says much about their qualifications for Yale. Climate change is a massively important issue yet we don't ask random humanities students what they've done to improve climate research.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#138
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hobby is to look for a physics theory of everything (ToE). I have virtually no chance at succeeding at this, but it's fun reading through random junk on ArXiV. I noticed something similar: You can find papers by clearly crazy people that have nuggets of good ideas in them. Odd bits of mathematics they reference might be an interesting rabbithole to go down, even if it ultimately leads nowhere. The whole thing remi…

If you want a good idea killed, have it presented by the wrong person. We attach an outsized amount of meaning between the two, sometimes so much that we kill the person delivering it.

Sometimes?

The easiest way to get killed by people in rage is to tell them the naked truth.

That's a hard rule since humanities dawn.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#139
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important thing I learned from my graduate advisor: anyone can have a worthwhile idea. I watched him for years coming into weekly colloquia and seeming to tune out reading papers. But, occasionally there would be a speaker that was less than credible, and you could feel the entire hall close off. But, my advisor would hear a tidbit of a good idea (even amongst loads of bunk), and look up from his journals an…

My hobby is to look for a physics theory of everything (ToE). I have virtually no chance at succeeding at this, but it's fun reading through random junk on ArXiV. I noticed something similar: You can find papers by clearly crazy people that have nuggets of good ideas in them. Odd bits of mathematics they reference might be an interesting rabbithole to go down, even if it ultimately leads nowhere. The whole thing remi…

I somehow converged around a similar idea, fun and exploration

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is interesting because it kind of contradicts itself: At first you say sometuing akin to “to become part of the elite you need to accept the elite's point of view and beliefs”, citing higher education as a gateway for elites, and the you use the discourse “social justice” as an example of what young people must believe in to get to higher education. But “social justice” is definitely not a foundational b…

Whether the origin of social justice in universities comes from students or the faculty is irrelative. Fact is that elite universities in the US stand strongly for social justice, and expressing those values in your essay and interview does increase your chances of admission - especially in comparison to expressing contrary values. Thus, if your only goal is to get in, you are better off emulating the values the univ…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN