Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

So what if there are minor differences in brain development that have some statistical effect? It doesn't mean that all members of group X are somehow unsuited for a particular career - let alone deserving of less dignity as human beings - but it could explain why fewer of them choose to pursue it. Different people have different talents and inclinations, and membership in a particular group defined by biological factors could well be correlated. But that is irrelevant when it comes to individuals.

In Nazi Germany, one propaganda poster said "You are nothing, your People (Volk) is everything". So in their ideology, the individual by itself doesn't matter, only as part of the group.

But every one of us is different from each other, and membership in some Group (whether defined by ethnicity, gender or anything else) may be a small part of it, but it does not define who we are.

There does seem to me to be an orthodoxy today. One that claims that any underrepresentation of some group must be the result of systemic discrimination, and that it has to be corrected by whatever means necessary. More and more, it tends to see people not as individuals, but again as representing some particular group, with relations between those groups always defined in terms of oppression and victimhood.

This orthodoxy has become the most dominant force on the political "left", but strangely enough, it is supported by some of the largest corporations as well - corporations that also increasingly control our access to information. Are they really just trying to counteract historical injustices? Will the invisible hand of the market guide us into a better society, once the CEOs are no longer straight white cis-males? Or do they, like so many others, just want to be on top of the power dynamics that they frame every human relationship in?

But I think it's also possible to have pro-social taboos, particularly if they're attempts to correct for some indefensible (but maybe cognitively appealing or historically convenient) past error.

So for example, imagine a society that long practiced infanticide against the neurodivergent, and state-backed violence, disenfranchisement, and murder against the merely socially awkward. After intense and often violent social struggle, this society now affords them (us) formal equality, but big gaps in wealth and power remain, and a revanchist minority (with a terrorist fringe) openly wishes for a return of the old ways.

That society might develop strong taboos against "just asking questions" about whether shy people really had it so bad, or whether society should worry about whether they're treated fairly, or whether there isn't some innate biological difference that accounts for their relative lack of success. That would probably be a good thing!

There's some amount of epistemic deadweight loss you would happily accept to be extra guarded against backsliding on the core ethical commitments. You might even come out ahead epistemically, where there would otherwise be strong but subtle cultural biases, pressures of ideological convenience, and cognitive-scientific artifacts around in-groups and out-groups that make _false_ claims about the shy, awkward, or neurodivergent more appealing than the objective facts merit.

You compare Twitter vs. Gab or Reddit vs. Voat, and these free speech alternatives get stuck in that alt-right filter bubble precisely because social media moderation has been largely (certainly not entirely) effective at targeting hatred and toxicity. When you only ban a bunch of hateful toxic people from your platform, any competing platform for the banned will be dominated by hateful toxic people, and nobody wants to be a part of that. If Reddit bans cat pictures tomorrow, suddenly there is a huge opportunity open for a competing platform that can appeal to wide mainstream audiences. This dynamic helps keep social media moderation in check.

Similarly, if there had been hard, actionable truth at the core of Damore's claims, there would have been a huge opportunity to gather evidence and observe effects and come up with an organizational system that better reflected the reality of human social relationships. If that wasn't the case, then all he would be left with is the path he seems to have taken - align with a camp in the culture wars and seek exposure through identity-based media.

I have problems with how Damore expressed himself too FWIW. But I think he was only trying to break an oppressive silence and start a conversation that was being heavily suppressed.

I would have been happy to give him a strong, balanced critique had I been at Google and had I felt it wouldn't get me fired too.