Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kolmogorov option

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#441

Post by Confusion »

naasking wrote: post #422
Confusion wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 'considering the immediate response' used to be a valuable heuristic, but isn't any more. Too many people have become too polarized. There are a bunch of folks from the tech industry on Twitter that I have followed for years, including some HN regulars, that are now, IMHO, in the 'too polarized' group. I no longer trust their opinion on various 'political' subjects to be the result of deliberate consideration…

> Every suggestion that maybe this Google guy wrote something reasonable was met with derision, including by these people I follow, effectively shouting down anyone who responded in a moderating way. You could also consider the possibility that they're right to deride the memo. Many studies are easily read incorrectly or have counter studies showing the effects aren't what they thought. But even if the memo were fact…

They may be right to deride the memo. They are not right to deride anyone who wonders whether writing something like that, and sending it internally to a mailing list intended for discussions of this subject, is maybe not an offence that deserves the outrage it garnered. Nor what basically amounts to a social death sentence.

Otherwise I'm with you until your last sentence. This is not a kind of human nature that I think we should accept. Especially because, as you say, it just doesn't work.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#442

Post by unityByFreedom »

ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #431
unityByFreedom wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> half of Damore's manifesto revolved around it And, Damore is now interviewing with YouTube personalities claiming Google silenced him. Meanwhile, every day are 4 new articles about his manifesto, which everyone can find fully linked up and formatted. There's nothing left to complain about. He's got the debate he wanted. I feel like the strategy of denouncing media began with Trump. It's earned him tons of attention…

>There's nothing left to complain about He just needs to get his job back, get people in his industry not threatening him any more etc... Galileo also got the discussion he wanted, eventually. >the strategy of denouncing media began with Trump Wasn't the media accusing Trump of being openly racist and antisemitic etc, with headlines like "If Trump wins, say goodbye to your black friends"[1]? The least I can say is th…

None of that negates the fact that these guys have had tons of press coverage. They haven't been censored at all.

I'm not going to get into whether Trump was actually racist or sexist because that's not the point.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#443

Post by geofft »

brighteyes wrote: post #358
geofft wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name one claim that is relevant to diversity at Google that is supported by any of the linked documents? I do agree (and admit as much in that comment!) that there are claims that he correctly cites, e.g. "Women score higher for 'neuroticism' as defined by psychology." My contention is that none of those claims are relevant to any plausible thesis of the document. (I think that saying "there exist irrelevant…

Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf and the references therein. In particular, > sex differences in personality traits can be detected in early childhood [..] and remain fairly constant across adulthood [..] The effects of these sex differences lead to predictable differences in men’s and women’s leisure behaviors, occupational pr…

As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a...

He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation Google is attempting to change with the specific initiatives he's denouncing (and calling illegal), and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors, including both gender roles and sexism, as causes of the situation.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#444

Post by jnwatson »

macrael wrote: post #372
akvadrako wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Why? I think it's not a legal issue - clearly Google can fire him without cause. But it's a cultural issue; is it morally acceptable to still work at or with Google, even though they show this behavior? Personally, this pisses me off enough that I've switched to DuckDuckGo for the moment.

Please read the article I linked by an employment lawyer, it definitely is a legal issue. Choosing to not fire the employee would have opened them up to serious legal liability. Now, you can believe that the law is disastrously unjust and that a manifesto calling your colleagues' abilities into question based on their gender should not qualify as creating a hostile work environment, but I am curious if you would feel…

"...that they recognize the type of man who would write it..." is the most illuminating phrase I've read from the left, and I'm terrified of it.

That I can choose to have a coworker fired over my projection, from his writing, of his internal psychological state is new to me.

The race to be the biggest victim makes sense to me now. That's awesome power.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#445

Post by mikeash »

ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #432
mikeash wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox News is a highly rated TV channel. Right-wing talk radio has tens of millions of listeners. Our national government is currently dominated by people who disagree with this supposed "prevailing ideology." I am baffled by the idea that liberals dominate discourse and conservatives have to hide in the shadows to avoid persecution. I see it in a lot of comments here, and half of Damore's manifesto revolved around it.…

I don't live in California, but I hear that if you do, and if you work in tech or academia, it is quite hard to find anyone in your social network who watches Fox News or listens to right-wing radio unironically. As I said, Damore doesn't need to fear for his life, but the people who have the greatest influence on his day-to-day wellbeing are absolutely willing to start a witch hunt as soon as he tries to argue for s…

"Tech in SV" is a tiny portion of the country. People are talking about this as if it's a national problem. Are there places which are insular and unaccepting of non-leftist views? Probably. Is the whole country that way? Absolutely not.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#446

Post by brighteyes »

geofft wrote: post #443
brighteyes wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf and the references therein. In particular, > sex differences in personality traits can be detected in early childhood [..] and remain fairly constant across adulthood [..] The effects of these sex differences lead to predictable differences in men’s and women’s leisure behaviors, occupational pr…

As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a... He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation…

Yes, I agree his suggestions to stop those initiatives is a bad idea. And that it doesn't follow we should stop those because of that study.

But regarding

> and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors

He doesn't do that. First, the section's very title is

> Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech

and

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes

(emphasis mine in both). Proposing that biology may play a role is not the same as saying that biology is everything.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#447

Post by Aapjes »

geofft wrote: post #393
cderwin wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the argument alt-right folk who actually deserve our hostility are trying to use Damore to make. Damore, however, is instead arguing that those biological differences make women less likely to pursue engineering as a field, not that those difference make them inferior.

Then why are the programs he's criticizing all about either successfully hiring or retaining women who are already interested in working at Google ? He also explicitly mentions ability: " Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biologi…

People's qualifications are not all the same. Imagine that Google wants to hire 1,000 people, but 10,000 people apply for a job. Then Google logically ought to take the best 1,000 people that apply.

With diversity quota's, the company may decide to hire a less able woman in favor of a more able man.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#448

Post by soundwave106 »

Boothroid wrote: post #414
soundwave106 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find differences between sexes / races / ethnicity, and I think it would be foolish to argue that there are no differences. I think it would be foolish to argue however environment and other factors are no influence either. Pulling apart which influences what is rather tricky, I think. One note I can think of, using your running analogy: focusing on the natural abilities at the very top of the echelon (or eve…

So your points can be summarised as: there are very few innate differences between men and women, and any differences are far less significant than environmental factors, and anyway you are not allowed to discuss them because human beings are so primitive that if we do find differences we risk a holocaust. This reads to me like a fairly standard rebuttal from the left wing/feminist school. Here's an example of a meas…

I don't think you read what I wrote, unfortunately.

Yes, on the topic you selected, grip strength, almost all men are going to be stronger than any women.

To go back to running though. You missed for instance where I said "men are naturally going to typically faster runners than men", which also is true. If you look at this large dataset of compiled 5K pace times, (http://www.pace-calculator.com/5k-pace-comparison.php), you will see that men have a very distinct advantage at all levels (usually a minute and a half pace difference on average).

But you cannot say "almost all men are going to run faster than women", due to the wide spread of pace. There are a significant amount of women capable of an 8 minute / mile pace; this pace is faster than the male average 5K pace at any age.

Nature is important; so is environmental factors. By mentioning that environmental factors exist, I am not dismissive of biological differences. I do think particularly on things like personality, intelligence, and other non-physical traits, it is fairly difficult to pick out what causes what. Testosterone / estrogen traits are fairly easy, we can see the results. Debugging the brain on the other hand is a lot harder.

I did not mention patriarchy or imperialism or feminism. I mention eugenics and tribalism because of the sordid history of this sort of thing; it's a serious warning flag to not rush to conclusion. You can say what you want and think what you want, but I personally would not take any person who does not recognize this warning flag very seriously, to be honest.

In theory, nothing should be out of bounds; in practice, this type of conversation easily degrades into tribalism, which yes I believe human beings are very prone to. (I mean, why else bring up feminism / left wing / patriarchy / imperialism? I didn't mention any of this.) That's not to say "don't discuss this", but I'm not going to say anything else if bringing up the fact that environmental factors exist turns me into some sort of left-wing caricature. :)

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#449

Post by Aapjes »

geofft wrote: post #443
brighteyes wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf and the references therein. In particular, > sex differences in personality traits can be detected in early childhood [..] and remain fairly constant across adulthood [..] The effects of these sex differences lead to predictable differences in men’s and women’s leisure behaviors, occupational pr…

As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a... He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation…

geofft,

By your reasoning brighteyes has just proven that you have reached conclusions not justified by the paper, so will you resign from your job, given that you think such incompetence on the part of Dalmore is inexcusable and makes him incapable to do his job?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#450

Post by geofft »

Aapjes wrote: post #449
geofft wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a... He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation…

geofft, By your reasoning brighteyes has just proven that you have reached conclusions not justified by the paper, so will you resign from your job, given that you think such incompetence on the part of Dalmore is inexcusable and makes him incapable to do his job?

If this were an internal company forum where I were making serious policy proposals that I expected the company to take seriously -- that is, if this were something I were doing as part of my job, and I were paying as much attention to detail as I should for every part of my job -- and if I had a senior title, then yes, definitely, I would offer my resignation or at least request a demotion. I would be letting my coworkers down if I continued to insist on a senior title and senior levels of respect. But I am being much less rigorous here than I would be for work. I don't try to be deliberately wrong on HN, but my standards for accuracy and professionalism (and copyediting, there are incomplete sentences in too many of my comments) are less exacting than they are for my employed work.

(And if I have done such a thing, which I don't believe I have. I'm really not sure why you say I've reached conclusions not justified by the paper?)

Post reply on HN