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

31–40 of 106 posts

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

#31

Post by jimbob45 »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #30
jimbob45 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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)

I’m on his side on this and certainly don’t want to attack him lol

However, I’m curious because it’s a much nicer-sounding term than the alternatives, seemingly engineered. Given the difficulties Conservatives have had in expressing distrust of newspapers, news stations, etc, I’m wondering if it came from a Conservative source.

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

#32

Post by SkyMarshal »

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…

> attempting to present his answers as more substantial than the underlying investigation could support (instead of doing a substantive sociological investigation);

This was the main issue I noticed when I read it. It read like a newbie academic making the classic fallacy of assuming the conclusion, then citing only sources that support that conclusion, while ignoring 1) that those sources are not definitive or conclusive, and 2) the body of research and evidence that may disprove it.

It's much easier to disprove an assertion than prove one true. In fact all of science is based around rigorously disproving hypotheses, simply because Process of Elimination is the most robust and reliable way of surfacing new truths while minimizing false positives.

Back to Damore's paper, if you're going to write a critique of something so controversial in society, you can't just cherry-pick sources that agree with you. A better approach would have been, as you observe, to raise questions about some issues and challenge society to a discussion, but without trying to prime or anchor it with pre-conceived conclusions.

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

#33

Post by ravi-delia »

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.

I definitely miss the vibe of the old SCC. I keep up with all the new posts, but when I feel like killing some time I'll go back through the archive. It has a sort of homey vibe that was lost with the transition to Substack. Of course I'm glad that Scott is receiving the metric tons of money his writing has always deserved, but there's definitely reason for nostalgia.

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

#34

Post by RangerScience »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #28
RangerScience wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-polici…

> tone policing

No, I get that, and you're not wrong. But...

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.

And again, I see that core diversity issue: a lot of us don't start out noticing tone pretty much at all (I definitely didn't!), or with tone having a meaningful impact on our experience of someone else's words, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or doesn't matter, or doesn't have an impact. And the more I notice all that, the happier I am with my words, the better they seem to be, and the more people seem to understand them.

As an example of the same communication with very different tone, so I can talk about it: "Here is what's going on, and here's the evidence that demonstrates it". "Here's what I think, and here's what I saw that led me to think that."

IMHO, the first one has a "tone" of "conclusiveness" (similar to "stop words", from Less Wrong). The only way for me to continue the (notional) conversation is to take an adversarial stance; the "tone" of the sentence is one of concluding the conversation. Contrast with the second one, which as a "tone" of "inclusion"; I'm bringing you along with my experience; and which I find has an inherent effect of inviting people to continue the conversation; the "tone" of the sentence if one of encouraging a continuation of the conversation.

I do think JD was attempting to contribute in good-faith (or, more so than less so; people are complex to begin with). IMHO it was a poor contribution in critical ways, and it's both sad and ironic to me how related those specific failures are to the diversity conversation to which he was attempted to contribute.

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

#35

Post by tomrod »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #28
RangerScience wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-polici…

More tone deafness, if I read the grandparent right.

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

#36

Post by roenxi »

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.

The specific context seems almost like a distraction; there is a fundamental issue being raised here. Is there such a thing as a prosocial repeated lie? The existence of a known, obvious and unchangeable inconsistency in the social fabric can paralyse the ability of people to find the truth using logic and reason.

Which isn't to say that the discourse has to be logically consistent - it isn't ever going to be. But it should be open to challenges from a logical basis. One of the strengths of western society is that persistently asking "why are we doing [X] it doesn't make sense?" or repeating "there is evidence that approach [Y] gets better results" has often resulted in change. Compared to somewhere like the USSR where the system collapsed before it let people just go out and make their own lives better.

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

#37

Post by Lambent_Cactus »

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.

The problem with signing up with an underground Straussian heretic network is that if you're not actually beset by the Inquisition or by Stalinism, you're likelier to trap yourself in an epistemic filter bubble than to discover some secret truth.

Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. And rather than grappling with the effects his memo might have had on such a complex environment, or even sticking to pursuing the empirical facts about his claims, he decided to pursue a career as a right-wing micro-celebrity, only engaging with conservative activists and alt-right trolls. And he's been stuck there ever since, with his fellow culture warriors clapping each other on their backs about what brave heretics they are, instead of getting back to building anything interesting.

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

#38

Post by ALittleLight »

RangerScience wrote: post #23
civilized wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices to focus less on traits that are more represented among men.

In other words, Damore does not view diversity problems as insurmountable blockers. Damore also says of himself that he is less likely to be assertive in ways that are rewarded at Google and explains that efforts to appreciate traits that are better represented among women would also benefit men evincing those traits. In other words, Damore doesn't break things down into "people like me" versus "people not like me". It seems like your summary is completely wrong.

I've noticed that a lot of Damore critics have very strong opinions that seem not well informed by Damore's actual writing. Can you highlight any specific thing from Damore's document that is wrong?

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

#39

Post by civilized »

ALittleLight wrote: post #38
RangerScience wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices t…

It's so deeply misinformed to say that Damore posited insurmountable blockers to groups of people not like him. It is impossible for me to understand how someone can claim to have read the document and this is what they understood it to be saying.

First of all, he stressed that the relevant traits exist in abundance in all groups, as each group has a wide range of people within it. He had a giant graph illustrating this at the outset. He couldn't have been more clear.

Second, he was talking about psychological tendencies and preferences, not a literal inability to do tech work.

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

#40

Post by ALittleLight »

RangerScience wrote: post #34
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-polici…

> tone policing No, I get that, and you're not wrong. But ... 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. And again, I see that core diversity issue: a lot of us don't start out noticing tone pretty much at all (I definitely didn't!), or with tone having a meaningful impac…

I think Damore's memo is an illustration that there is no "conversation" on diversity. You are allowed to not discuss the topic or to have the approved opinion, but, ironically enough, if you share a diverse opinion on diversity, you will be fired and publicly condemned in national media as a sexist bigot.
Post reply on HN