Live data from Hacker News

The Kolmogorov option

scottaaronson.com

151–160 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#151
post #68
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He wrote about a subject he knows little about, didn't seriously research, and one that he actually doesn't seem too interested in studying at all He has a Master's Degree in Systems Biology from Harvard. How do you reconcile that?

Oh, sorry; I've read his manifesto and didn't realize it was about systems biology. My impression was that it was about women in tech. Did he research social structures or even the psychological differences between the sexes?

He did link to and summarise research on the psychological differences between the sexes - but it seems that this was the cause of quite a bit of the blowback because people didn't understand that this is what he was doing e.g. when he was talking about Neuroticism in the technical sense as one of the big 5 personality traits, and many people incorrectly interpreted that as him calling women neurotic.

Also the links he provided that would have given this context were removed from quite a few of the online copies of the manifesto, causing further confusion.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#152
post #144
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of race-based slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of child-slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of childhood labor? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of racial discrimination? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of gende…

This is an equivocation. There's such a thing as an is/ought distinction. The fact that there might be some rational description of morally abhorrent behavior doesn't lead to the conclusion that that behavior is acceptable . Understanding doesn't mean accepting. Darwinism, for instance, doesn't imply Social Darwinism. Neither do theories of criminal behavior attempt to legitimize crime. And if anything, anyone who's…

And if anything, anyone who's appalled by these things should actually be interested in studying the conditions under which these things might happen

I agree with this very strongly.

I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas.

It's interesting. I used to believe that abhorrent ideas should be confronted. But I'm not longer convinced - it seems to me that attention is adequate in many cases to allow abhorrent ideas to spread.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#153
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprising how different people interpret post-1980 decline of women in computer science differently. As the article suggests, introduction of personal computer is one of the best candidate. My interpretation is that this data supports "interest, not ability" thesis of Damore, and personal computer amplified pre-existing interest difference.

And then you start learning about the different distribution of ownership and access to personal computers among boys and girls, and it looks like the personal computer actually introduced the interest difference. The book Unlocking The Clubhouse has a bunch of discussion on this topic, if you're curious.

You mean that boys like computers more --> they buy more computers (or nag their parents about getting one), or that parents are more prone to give computers to boys --> girls never have the chance to get as interested?

Interestingly, teenage girls seem to have more access to (desktop) computers than boys have nowadays: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/201...

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the claim is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house. EDIT: This is why I believe people in STEM fields would really benefit from spending some ti…

> No, the suggestion is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. This is not a prerequisite of all discussions. > Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house. This is easy to discover and correct…

> This is not a prerequisite of all discussions.

You're literally reversing your position here:

> Are you suggesting that some topics can only be discussed if

We were not talking about all discussions, we were talking about how some topics don't play nice with this method of having a discussion.

> This is easy to discover and correct for if both parties approach the discussion without being disingenuous.

You mean like not pretending you were talking about the opposite thing you were actually talking about one comment ago?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#155
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what he's saying that if Kolmogorov was cautious enough to keep his unpopular opinions to himself, so can you.

But the pre-requisite to this advice is that your belief should have a modicum of truth to it.

And do you think anyone hold beliefs they don't consider truthful?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you find a rational person willing to defend any of the points you made, then yes, it is wrong to be against that discussion.

A rational discussion of it does not mean defending it! As Aristotle apparently said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If we can't even discuss certain topics, if we can't even think things through, then we've entered the realm of thought police.

But if discussion of abhorrent ideas is enough to spread them, is the benefit of that discussion worthwhile?

I ask this in a bit more depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967029

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#157

What I find myself wanting to fight is not the prevailing views on a topic, it's the willingness to lie and mislead to promote those views. I saw that this past week with the Google memo situation. I also saw a shocking amount of it last year with the US election. Sloppy journalism feeds the people who seem to want to believe the worst in everything, who in turn feed entire social networks. Eventually sufficient peop…

Some of the worst offences are these new "fact-checkers" which all seem heavily biased towards the left. When so many people are committed to a motivated and shallow version of the truth, it's hard to find the people who care ONLY about the truth.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#159
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't know what the theory of evolution says, but considering the response it gets, I'd say it's not worth defending"

No, I'm saying that a particular text presenting the theory of evolution may not be worthy defending. There's a distinction between the idea and a particular representation of it.

It's still making up your mind by proxy, and the "best" part about that is, you don't know how many people whose proxy impression you take into account depend in turn also haven't made up their own mind, and whether they are reaction to the piece or reacting to what they think is expected of them. I don't distinct between one person and one billion people claiming or thinking something, what matters is why they do, what their axioms and conclusions are. If those are second-hand, follow the reference and let GC handle the now useless pointer.

> There's a distinction between the idea and a particular representation of it.

And it's generally a bit silly to get hung up on a bad representation of something and hold that against any points that may be buried in it. E.g. I don't like Trump at all, I don't think a lot of things he said even before the election are forgiveable in the least, and so on. But I can't completely dismiss the resentment and disenfranchisement he rode in on, not all of that is racist sore losers, and to ignore that just because Trump was made to win and Sanders made to lose would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Similarly, whatever there may be worth discussing in all this, why leave it to resentful misogynists or whoever?

There are too many issues already that get carved up into two or more sides all of which holding grains of truth and plenty of BS, where there is little discussion and lots of signalling what side you're on. Like, I'm generally against xenophobia and for immigrants, certainly for those from countries our allies and us are messing up. But on a demonstration, I'm automatically also with people who yell about smashing all borders!!1 and I'm like "hold on, that has to scare a lot of people who are nowhere near the page you're on". I can live with that much better than with things I would see on demonstrations against immigrants, for sure, but I still am not happy, you know?

And I have to kinda walk to eggshells to bring that up, to criticize "my own", and make sure to signal "I'm not a racist, I just think this is a bit too much". Which is kind of childish, really. It's like saying I'm not a heretic, I just noticed this thing when I looked through my telescope. Yeah okay I'll do that to not get killed, fine, but it's still silly. I don't like the tug of masses no matter the direction they pull me in, and even if I get pulled into a good direction by people who have good motives today, what will happen tomorrow? Can I get away from the undertow when it changes direction? I'd rather be away and stay away from it, and swim parallel to it as long as I agree with it.

When it comes to this discussion, my opinion is probably beyond the scope anyway, since I think "boys like things more" just means "boys are easier to fuck up". I don't believe in a spectrum where you're either very rational or very emotional, just because you can't be both in the same instant doesn't mean you can't have orthogonal capacities for both. So I don't care how to get more women in tech, I care about getting more men to be nurses, I interested in the dysfunctions that make them hide in boys' clubs and behind money, that make them prefer non-threatening women. I think females in the military are a step backwards, progress would be nobody in the military. And so on, I'm kinda keeping out of this because I'm completely off to lala land anyway. But still, there's not even much of an interesting discussion to read.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've now seen several defences of this, and it confuses me. The whole "Marxist Intellectuals are destroying our society from the inside by promoting the gay lifestyle" thing only makes sense in terms of being a dog-whistle for people who don't like jews or gays or liberals generally. It doesn't make any sense to me if I take it literally. How is Peter Thiel or Tim Cook being able to be open about their sexuality bad…

Your comment is dishonest. That isn't a quote from the memo. It is: [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race…

I'm still not clear what they're actually supposed to be doing that is bad. Do you not know either?

edit: I just realised you thought I was providing a direct quote, I was just paraphrasing, but I think it accurately captures the spirit of this footnote. I'm happy for someone to provide clarification on how this isn't a reference to the widespread conspiracy theory.

Post reply on HN