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

61–70 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#61

Post by macrael »

sanxiyn wrote: post #48
macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

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.

If we're throwing around theories without evidence, what do you think about the fact that nerd culture, exemplified by movies from the 80s like Revenge of the Nerds, welcomes and glorifies young men who don't know how to talk to women? If women are less interested in computers than men, could it not be because we have created a culture that is unappealing to them?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#62

Post by jacalata »

sanxiyn wrote: post #48
macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

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.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#63

Post by FrozenVoid »

habitue wrote: post #33

Let's say this is about the Google memo. And let's say, for the sake of argument, you're a person who thinks Damore had some good points and some bad points but you think the hysterically censorious response to him was way over the line. But you don't want to become a pariah yourself, so you stay quiet about it. The argument Damore was making was fiddly, kind of subtle and takes a long time to explain, it's not worth…

Once its crimethink to entertain a certain position, the cost of defending such position must be balanced with cost of just accepting this position and moving on. I don't think you can change cultural values and entire political climate with just facts and logic. Its a naive reductionism to assume "right ideas always win". Most people don't 'believe' in that, they have ideas, beliefs and emotions. Facts and logic come second to rationalize the above.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#64

Post by kamilner »

rodgerd wrote: post #39

He may be a wonderful person, but if he genuinely thinks being a straight white guy in the US is harder than being gay, he's not as clever as he thinks he is.

I'm not sure what about this thread precipitated this comment, but it sounds like you'll be relieved to discover he doesn't think that.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#65

Post by tpeo »

jacalata wrote: post #58
tpeo wrote: post #30

Besides ideological self-righteousness, Aaronson left out one important component of oppressive regimes, which I think is actually far more important: it takes a relatively large amount of people to topple a regime, while small groups as well as individuals do nothing but expose themselves by rebelling. So no individual with any regard for his own personal safety has any incentive to rebel, and will instead go along…

I don't think you need something as serious as an oppressive regime to get into this state. It sounds like an instance of the Abilene paradox - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

Indeed, it probably doesn't. Thanks for the link, by the way.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#66

Post by icebraining »

habitue wrote: post #33

Let's say this is about the Google memo. And let's say, for the sake of argument, you're a person who thinks Damore had some good points and some bad points but you think the hysterically censorious response to him was way over the line. But you don't want to become a pariah yourself, so you stay quiet about it. The argument Damore was making was fiddly, kind of subtle and takes a long time to explain, it's not worth…

Counterpoint: even if you want to defend a "middle" position, that doesn't mean every argument roughly in that area is worthy defending. I didn't read the memo, so I have no opinion its merits on their own, but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending, because it clearly wasn't written in a way that could ever have a hope of convincing anyone not already on the fence.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#67

Post by SamReidHughes »

Frondo wrote: post #54
jdoliner wrote: post #21

> if I don’t understand what is or isn’t hurtful, then I’ll defer to the leading intellectuals in my culture to tell me This essay was so promising, and then turned out to be a pledge of allegiance to the thought police.

I think you missed the point of that one. He doesn't want to hurt other people, but realizes he won't know all the ways he could do so accidentally. So, in the interest of not hurting people, if he is unsure whether something will or not, he'll defer to smarter people about what's appropriate behavior. If you don't care whether what you say hurts others, you need do nothing, need defer to no one any time, ever.

What he's really doing is letting himself get censored by hecklers.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#68

Post by pron »

jack9 wrote: post #56
pron wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore is no Galileo. 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 wanted to enjoy the appearance of a "forbidden truth" while not caring to put in the effort of actually acquiring it. Aside from the fact that his opinion isn't popular in his immediate circle (yet far from revolutionary, and indeed very common am…

> 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?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#69

Post by ZeroGravitas »

apsec112 wrote: post #38
macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

"Please, before you throw in your lot with him, consider how ridiculous the analogy OP made here is. The Google Manifesto is manifestly not A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." Aaronson doesn't mention Google or Damore.

Yes, but it's clear what he meant:

Those sharing the truth in the most rational way are the ones most viciously attacked. The society rejects even considering the hypothesis because they are afraid of the truth that they all recognize.

Clearly he's calling for us to calmly and rationally re-evaluate the hypothesis that Jews are sub-human parasites that are destroying our societies from within and that the only rational solution is to exterminate them before they destroy our glorious Aryan culture.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#70

Post by igravious »

Quick question.

“Every mathematician believes that he is ahead of the others. The reason none state this belief in public is because they are intelligent people.”

The others here, does it refer to other mathematicians, or other people in general?

Post reply on HN