Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#11

Post by civilized »

exolymph wrote: post #6

This was published in response to a lament about James Damore, in case anyone is wondering about the immediate context. The proximate issue was that women and men, on average / in aggregate, are different. But the general principles apply to other issues as well.

Ah yes, Mr. Damore. Author of a document the entire prestige media called an "anti-diversity screed" in perfect lockstep, even though anyone could read it for themselves and see it was nothing of the sort.

2017 sure was a year for the history books.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#13

Post by bpodgursky »

exolymph wrote: post #6

This was published in response to a lament about James Damore, in case anyone is wondering about the immediate context. The proximate issue was that women and men, on average / in aggregate, are different. But the general principles apply to other issues as well.

"Men and women are exactly the same in every way that is societally meaningful, but it remains critically important that people can surgically switch between those genders at will."

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#16

Post by civilized »

thewakalix wrote: post #15
xondono wrote: post #14

I miss SSC so much

In case you're not aware, the author has continued the blog on Substack: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ But if it's just nostalgia, then I agree. Substack is slower, harder to navigate, and less Aesthetic.

Substack also gives Scott Alexander shipping containers of money, so I can't be too upset.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#17

Post by xondono »

thewakalix wrote: post #15
xondono wrote: post #14

I miss SSC so much

In case you're not aware, the author has continued the blog on Substack: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ But if it's just nostalgia, then I agree. Substack is slower, harder to navigate, and less Aesthetic.

I knew, but somehow it feels different. With SCC I spent whole afternoons chasing links, reading and learning.

I don’t get that with substack.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#18

Post by BlueTemplar »

xondono wrote: post #17
thewakalix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're not aware, the author has continued the blog on Substack: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ But if it's just nostalgia, then I agree. Substack is slower, harder to navigate, and less Aesthetic.

I knew, but somehow it feels different. With SCC I spent whole afternoons chasing links, reading and learning. I don’t get that with substack.

IMHO it's because Substack was not designed with heavy commenting in mind. And its mandatory JavaScript only makes matters worse (good luck getting the position where you were last in the comments saved !)

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#19

Post by RangerScience »

civilized wrote: post #11
exolymph wrote: post #6

This was published in response to a lament about James Damore, in case anyone is wondering about the immediate context. The proximate issue was that women and men, on average / in aggregate, are different. But the general principles apply to other issues as well.

Ah yes, Mr. Damore. Author of a document the entire prestige media called an "anti-diversity screed" in perfect lockstep, even though anyone could read it for themselves and see it was nothing of the sort. 2017 sure was a year for the history books.

I found that JD's document was a moderately anti-diversity screed, tho. I did a deep read (the document, everything the document linked to, most of the things that those linked to) back when it all went down.

IMO, while James raised a valid question ("how do we know any of this is working, or even can work?"), some of his mistakes were in attempting to answer it (instead of solidly beginning a conversation); attempting to answer it on his own (instead of recruiting a diverse group of backgrounds to answer it); attempting to present his answers as more substantial than the underlying investigation could support (instead of doing a substantive sociological investigation); in the answers he provided (aligned with historical misogynistic orthodoxy); how he presented those answers (in a way not inviting or encouraging questioning); etc. I really, really wonder what would have happened if he'd sought out diverse co-authors.

Ironically, (AFAICT) the entire core issue of diversity in the first place is answering questions from/with only one perspective; and (AFAICT) much of the core issue of equity is having people with one perspective answering important questions for people with a different perspective.

So there really wasn't any possible way for him to succeed at anything beyond raising the question, on his own.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#20

Post by civilized »

RangerScience wrote: post #19
civilized wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, Mr. Damore. Author of a document the entire prestige media called an "anti-diversity screed" in perfect lockstep, even though anyone could read it for themselves and see it was nothing of the sort. 2017 sure was a year for the history books.

I found that JD's document was a moderately anti-diversity screed, tho. I did a deep read (the document, everything the document linked to, most of the things that those linked to) back when it all went down. IMO, while James raised a valid question ("how do we know any of this is working, or even can work?"), some of his mistakes were in attempting to answer it (instead of solidly beginning a conversation); attempti…

I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article. It's about people who had fresh perspectives getting shut down by authorities who were mad about what they said. And how those authorities always have an excuse in terms of something the person didn't say or do perfectly.

If Damore didn't perfectly solve America's diversity problems in one swoop, I guess that's a mark against him -- but what about the people who attacked him rather than helping to realize his vision of a more candid, psychologically safe discussion of corporate diversity policy? People like Sundar Pichai, very rich, comfortable, powerful folks who chose to rhetorically demonize Damore rather than showing literally any courage to critique his points in a nuanced way?

And no, it wasn't an anti-diversity screed. Powerful people said it was, so now people scramble to say how the powerful people were kinda right. They weren't. They lied.

Post reply on HN