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

21–30 of 106 posts

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

#21

Post by ajuc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #7

Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. You put "we won't allow anybody to talk about lightning" on the first paragraph of your institution's code of conduct. You actively censor people discussing it, and do all you can to erase it from their history. On a related matter, people…

> Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle.

Nah. That makes it a forbidden fruit attracting rebellious youth like nothing else. I've seen it happen in communist Poland regarding the Katyń massacre for example. You don't outright say "we don't talk about Katyń here" - that would just make it more popular and indirectly admit you are wrong.

What you actually do is invent your own version of facts that works emotionally just as well (Germans did it), spread it everywhere, and punish people in a way that is reasonable and provides plausible denial. For example my father (very interested in history since he was a kid) repeated a class in high school because he failed history - giving the "wrong" answers on exams.

It's not that they will kill your family - there's no need usually. It's just you're making everything harder for yourself.

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

#22

Post by jl2718 »

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…

If I’m not mistaken, this was an individual contribution to an internal discussion, not at all part of his job. When you say he should seek diverse opinions, is that not exactly what he did in submitting this to a discussion including many diverse opinions?

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

#23

Post by RangerScience »

civilized wrote: post #20
RangerScience wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I understand why you're assuming I didn't read the linked article, but I'm not sure (or perhaps disinterested?) in proving that I did. SSC is excellent, has some of my top favorite things on the entire internet, and I don't think I've seen anything from it that I'd consider problematic or of poor quality.

TBH, I didn't pay much attention to what others said about JD's document. I saw there was a controversy, looked at a few things about that controversy, then went to the source and came to my own conclusions. Those were some of my conclusions.

Sure, JD didn't say diversity was bad. He said something along the lines of what I'll paraphrase as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me." Which, like... if you don't see how that's the problem, I can 100% throw some effort trying to communicate to you how that's the problem. Just ask :)

Here's questions: Do you feel like your reply, here, was in any way a critique of my points in a nuanced way? Do you feel like what I've presented of my take on JD's document was a critique of his points in a nuanced way?

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

#24

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#25

Post by RangerScience »

jl2718 wrote: post #22
RangerScience wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I’m not mistaken, this was an individual contribution to an internal discussion, not at all part of his job. When you say he should seek diverse opinions, is that not exactly what he did in submitting this to a discussion including many diverse opinions?

Yeah, I wasn't able to find much on that aspect of the situation. Thing of it was, it very much DID NOT read to me as one "turn" of a discussion, but something attempting to be a solid answer; the conclusion of a discussion, after which no more discussion should happen. IMHO, he said about twice as much as he should have; which is to say, IMHO he should have just asked a bunch of questions ("are we looking at middle and highschool interest rates in STEM when we determine diversity goals?") where instead he both asked and answered questions (MS and HS interest rates in STEM means it's pointless to try to do [all these other things]).

In other words, to the extent that it was true that it was a contribution to an internal discussion, and to the extent that that matters, it had many critical flaws as a contribution to a discussion.

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

#26

Post by jimbob45 »

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.

“Prestige media” is a new term I haven’t seen before. It sounds like a classier sounding version of MSM or liberal media or left-leaning outlets. I’m very curious to hear where you first heard that term.

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

#28

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

RangerScience wrote: post #25
jl2718 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m not mistaken, this was an individual contribution to an internal discussion, not at all part of his job. When you say he should seek diverse opinions, is that not exactly what he did in submitting this to a discussion including many diverse opinions?

Yeah, I wasn't able to find much on that aspect of the situation. Thing of it was, it very much DID NOT read to me as one "turn" of a discussion, but something attempting to be a solid answer; the conclusion of a discussion, after which no more discussion should happen. IMHO, he said about twice as much as he should have; which is to say, IMHO he should have just asked a bunch of questions ("are we looking at middle…

He was asked to contribute his thoughts, and he did.

He backed it up with evidence.

It may be that he didn't use all the evidence available and some supports contrary views - I'd be surprised if this weren't the case - but he was engaging in good faith, expecting someone else to present that counter-argument.

I don't mean this to be disrespectful but it appears the majority of your criticism boils down to tone-policing.

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

#30

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

jimbob45 wrote: post #26
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.

“Prestige media” is a new term I haven’t seen before. It sounds like a classier sounding version of MSM or liberal media or left-leaning outlets. I’m very curious to hear where you first heard that term.

Why does it matter where they first heard the term?

It feels - based on your presumptions - like you're gearing up to attack them if the source isn't acceptable.

(This may be completely inaccurate and I'm just being hypervigilant)

Post reply on HN