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

91–100 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#91

Post by vanderZwan »

benchaney wrote: post #74
AndrewOMartin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A problem with this kind of analysis of the situation is that everyone thinks they're in the "subtle and qualified" camp.

It should be obvious that anyone arguing against having a rational discussion is wrong about being in that camp.

The US has a long history of using the "rational discussion" argument to shut rational people up:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-cold-war-philosophy-permeates-us-...

Also, any sentence with "it should be obvious" raises a red flag with me - usually it is uttered by people don't actually want to reflect on whatever they are asserting to be true.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#92

Post by SidiousL »

pjc50 wrote: post #88
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…

Damore is himself deeply buried in identity politics, as can be determined by his use of the codeword "Marxist intellectuals" in one of his footnotes.

I think using "deeply buried in identity politics" is overstating facts. And I'm sure you can find many people in academia and otherwise who will clearly identify as Marxists and who advance the points of view that he was against.

If being against a certain current of thought makes you "deeply buried in identity politics", then count me in.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#93

Post by babuskov »

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…

> until equality is the rule of the day

But people aren't clones and we aren't all equal. Hey, I want to be equal to LeBron James. Please, give me the same salary.

You want equality, there's communism for you. See how that panned out.

> women are innately unsuited to computers

Did you read the original paper? Damore never wrote that. He was talking about statistical chance, not generalizing like you are now.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#94

Post by loup-vaillant »

idlewords wrote: post #72
igravious wrote: post #70

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?

Other mathematicians.

I wouldn't be surprised if a sizeable fraction, perhaps even the majority, of mathematicians are in fact ahead of all the others. They just have to be best at their own chosen specialization.

(Also, one may need a little hubris to actually do something. I would never have written my crypto library if I didn't started with the overconfidence required to brave mainstream advice.)

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#95

Post by vanderZwan »

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…

> the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish.

You're talking about Mutual Knowledge[0]. Basically, the Emperor's New Clothes scenario: I know the emperor is naked, but does everyone else know and do I want to risk myself finding out?

This short Stephen Pinker video[1] explains it really well:

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_knowledge_(logic)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#96

Post by TeMPOraL »

wisty wrote: post #37
idlewords wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I presume you're a techie, it's funny that you overlook the main reason for Luther's success, which was technological—the invention of the mass-printed pamphlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Reformat... I would also urge you to resist the lure of game theory in analyzing human behavior. It's a toy model that gives toy insights.

Mass communication was also a factor, but probably not one that Luther would have grasped until he was already committed. And he wouldn't have printed any pamphlets if the local authorities executed him immediately. As for game theory being a toy model, every model of human behaviour is a toy model. I'm not sure if game theory is a particularly bad one.

I think the conclusion from that argument, which I'm honest-to-god surprised to see 'idlewords making, is that if not Luther, then it would be someone else a month or a year later, because a) the forces that shaped Luther were present in other places, and b) it's the printing press that made the Reformation stick (there were earlier attempts, which failed).

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#97

Post by hueving »

icebraining wrote: post #66
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.

>but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending

That is only a valid stance assuming immediate responses are rational. When anything gets anywhere near a topic like this, the immediate responses that are shouted out will almost never be rational.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#99

Post by TeMPOraL »

jfoutz wrote: post #16

My only complaint is the 'truths everyone knows' but doesn't say. Most people just don't care. there are a few thousand people that think deeply about worldview A, and a handful of others that think deeply about worldview B. Everybody else is worried about milking their cow, or pilgrimage to the holy land, or picking the kids up from soccer practice. When worldview A is dominant, problems are framed in terms of A. It…

This sounds like "epistemic learned helplessness" - in which you realize that, in domains you're not a specialist in, you can't really discriminate between convincing-sounding arguments of different smart people, so you give up trying and default to whatever is the current majority consensus.

See http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#100

Post by icebraining »

jules wrote: post #90
icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I don't know what the theory of evolution says, but considering the response it gets, I'd say it's not worth defending"

No, I'm saying that a particular text presenting the theory of evolution may not be worthy defending. There's a distinction between the idea and a particular representation of it.
Post reply on HN