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

101–106 of 106 posts

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

#101

Post by ALittleLight »

RangerScience wrote: post #94
ALittleLight wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your comment opposed to Damore as something like "Damore says this distribution of traits exists in the general population, but it doesn't necessarily exist in the subset of Google." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think that point is true and I think it is the kind of thing where, if Google were considering taking Damore's feedback, they should investigate. Is Google's population of employees noticeably dif…

> something like Yeah, that's correct. And IMHO, if Damore had presented just that, I would expect the outcome to be different, although still fraught for other reasons. But he didn't present just that. > questions You did end up answering them, although in a different chain! And I appreciate it. > disagreement I mean, bluntly, I'm pretty much ready to abandon it, although since others are engaging seems like you're…

"Heretic burning" is, obviously, pretty hyperbolic. Nobody is actually being burnt. But, people's (i.e. Damore's) reputations are getting damaged. Other readers have reinforced for them the fact that if you question diversity orthodoxy you will be vilified and fired. I very much think your comments are in that vein - you started with explaining that Damore's memo "was a moderately anti-diversity screed".

Damore's memo was not an anti-diversity screed and I don't believe any reasonable reader could reach that conclusion. As such, I view your comments not as participating in conversation but as a warning light to passersby that they will suffer enduring reputational damage should they express the wrong opinions - a reminder that even if your positions are evidence based, measured, and appropriately expressed you will still face the destruction of your career and reputation for expressing those ideas.

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

#102

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #51
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #27

He really is an excellent writer, isn't he?

Most of his articles could be about a third as long with no loss in clarity. The meandering windups can be _rhetorically_ effective, especially when they appeal to the biases of the reader, as they appeal to mine. But they're not truth-directed, and often obscure weak or blindered reasoinng, as I think they do here.

You're underestimating the value of a good lead-up, and the principle of "pace and lead".

Most people are not interested in reading a Wiki article on an abstract topic, and want to be taken along for the ride - including why it's worth reading the article.

He is an excellent writer for getting hundreds of thousands of people to want to know about Kolmogorov complicity in a useful way.

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

#103

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

RangerScience wrote: post #96
civilized wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more time I spend with people who've been emotionally abused, listening to their experiences, the more I understand how huge a part of abuse is the tone of speech involved in that abuse. Have you asked yourself who was emotionally abused in the Damore affair? Who was misrepresented in a defamatory fashion? Who was publicly denounced and fired? Frankly, I think it's sociopathic to emphasize kindness so much as a…

Okay. Well, first, I'd just ask: in the discussion here, do you think I've been inconsistently applying kindness, or, more directly, being unkind to those who disagree with me? Second, I really don't understand how this should be applied to my assertion that tone matters. Can you walk me through that? Or, am I mistaken in thinking that you're saying you disagree that tone matters?

You're now several layers away from the point.

No one disagrees that "tone matters", but issues of social censorship - rapidly adopted taboos - are only dealt with by frank conversation, and tone policing serves only to preclude that.

Yes "tone matters", but that is never pointed out by the side that isn't protecting its hegemony in doing so.

Damore wasn't quite as gentle as he could've been, but the context did not clearly ask for gentleness and invited critique, which he gave.

It's a bit rough expecting engineers to have expert kid gloves on delicate social matters, especially when a large group of people on side are sitting poised and ready to pounce on any disagreement - at which point "tone" is going to be evidence of malice.

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

#104

Post by RangerScience »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #103
RangerScience wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Well, first, I'd just ask: in the discussion here, do you think I've been inconsistently applying kindness, or, more directly, being unkind to those who disagree with me? Second, I really don't understand how this should be applied to my assertion that tone matters. Can you walk me through that? Or, am I mistaken in thinking that you're saying you disagree that tone matters?

You're now several layers away from the point. No one disagrees that "tone matters", but issues of social censorship - rapidly adopted taboos - are only dealt with by frank conversation, and tone policing serves only to preclude that. Yes "tone matters", but that is never pointed out by the side that isn't protecting its hegemony in doing so. Damore wasn't quite as gentle as he could've been, but the context did not…

IMO, you don't need expert kid gloves when you can have lazy gloves instead.

Sure, someone still needs to be taught (or miraculously realize on their own) the basic rules, but once known them, I don't think the rules really require any skill to use, even if applying them can take time and effort.

Realizing when to use them, comes back around to OP and K-complicity; "if I'm worried this'll get me in trouble, use the kid gloves.". Or, perhaps: "If this is a sensitive topic, use the kid gloves". Which to me seems pretty straightforward - do you know anyone who doesn't think diversity/etc issues are sensitive?

Here's a few of my "rules":

1. Don't make statements about other people - only ask questions.

2. Say less. Say less than that.

3. Look for opportunities to hand off the "microphone"

Are there rules you've noticed, that are easy to apply, that make talking about hard things easier, or less fraught, for you?

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

#105

Post by RangerScience »

ALittleLight wrote: post #101
RangerScience wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something like Yeah, that's correct. And IMHO, if Damore had presented just that, I would expect the outcome to be different, although still fraught for other reasons. But he didn't present just that. > questions You did end up answering them, although in a different chain! And I appreciate it. > disagreement I mean, bluntly, I'm pretty much ready to abandon it, although since others are engaging seems like you're…

"Heretic burning" is, obviously, pretty hyperbolic. Nobody is actually being burnt. But, people's (i.e. Damore's) reputations are getting damaged. Other readers have reinforced for them the fact that if you question diversity orthodoxy you will be vilified and fired. I very much think your comments are in that vein - you started with explaining that Damore's memo "was a moderately anti-diversity screed". Damore's mem…

I'm sticking to my theory that much of what made Damore's document problematic - or problematic enough to warrant what happened - was due to, essentially, tone.

Maybe I am naïve, but I do strongly believe that it is completely possible to express non-orthodox positions in a way that doesn't prompt that kind of backlash. (And to put my money at least somewhat where my mouth is, I'll totally workshop something with anyone reading this if they're wanting to express such a position.)

Going back to OP, if I rephrase "k-complicity" as "don't challenge people with lethal power; instead be silent", then this all becomes "don't talk normally to people about sensitive things; instead be exceptionally kind."

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

#106

Post by ALittleLight »

RangerScience wrote: post #105
ALittleLight wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Heretic burning" is, obviously, pretty hyperbolic. Nobody is actually being burnt. But, people's (i.e. Damore's) reputations are getting damaged. Other readers have reinforced for them the fact that if you question diversity orthodoxy you will be vilified and fired. I very much think your comments are in that vein - you started with explaining that Damore's memo "was a moderately anti-diversity screed". Damore's mem…

I'm sticking to my theory that much of what made Damore's document problematic - or problematic enough to warrant what happened - was due to, essentially, tone. Maybe I am naïve, but I do strongly believe that it is completely possible to express non-orthodox positions in a way that doesn't prompt that kind of backlash. (And to put my money at least somewhat where my mouth is, I'll totally workshop something with any…

I continue to think this is not a reasonable reading of Damore's document. There is absolutely nothing wrong or unprofessional about Damore's tone.
Post reply on HN