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

91–100 of 106 posts

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

#91

Post by Lambent_Cactus »

clavicat wrote: post #86
Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Eastern Bloc did ... kind of a lot of violent coercion? The penalty for jumping the Berlin Wall was not losing your job.

Yes, but being shot was not the fate of a typical dissident under late socialism. Gentler states like that of Hungary also managed to suppress dissident and not with bullets. More typical is the following: >Konrád lost his job by order of the political police in July 1973. For half a year he worked as a nurse's aide at the work-therapy-based mental institution at Doba.

Orders of the political police are backstopped by violence. I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing?

Either way, the head-shooting and the stake-burning are Scott Alexander's metaphors here, from the linked SSC post. As the severity, suddenness, and violence of the sanctions heretics actually face go down my intuitions about his Parable of Lightning start to change. Dial them all the way down to Damore's situation (private business terminating at-will employment, for repeated on-the-job behavior that creates HR problems, totally non-violent) and my intuitions flip entirely.

All the rhetorical work of the Parable is done by this false equivalence. That it falls apart when stated so plainly causes me at least to worry about the reliability of SSC's digressive style. What other unfounded assumptions slip through on mood affiliation when you're not disciplined enough to write straightforwardly?

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

#92

Post by throwaway81523 »

civilized wrote: post #90
throwaway81523 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pluralistic ignorance is one of the ideas that comes up in the article, though not with that label. As such, it is a helpful starting point and it is easy to understand. I thought the article made interesting points, but could have done so far more succinctly. By comparison, when I read Richard Stallman's stuff, I don't always agree with it, but I'm usually impressed by how concisely he is able to say things. SSC is…

To be honest, I don't find the term or the wiki article that illuminating. Scott's way of doing things from scratch, in his own words, feels more worth my time. And IMO he is doing something way more interesting in that article than just rehashing a concept we happen to have a name for. Subjective feelings aside, it would be more interesting to give an example of an author who addresses the topics Scott addresses at…

I guess it depends on the audience. As a kid who grew up watching Star Trek, I already knew that humans are illogical. And having been around through the Trump presidency among other things, I know they go berserk over some seemingly innocuous topics, and that you have to be careful to not trigger people. So I didn't need to read 20 pages to absorb those lessons.

An analogy: we're mostly experienced programmers here, so we can usually understand a quick description of a programming concept even if it's new to us. A programming book for beginners might have to spend much longer getting the same idea across. Perhaps "Scott's way of doing things from scratch" is like that. But once you've read a few of those essays, you're no longer a beginner, so you'd rather have the quick version.

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

#93

Post by civilized »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #92
civilized wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I don't find the term or the wiki article that illuminating. Scott's way of doing things from scratch, in his own words, feels more worth my time. And IMO he is doing something way more interesting in that article than just rehashing a concept we happen to have a name for. Subjective feelings aside, it would be more interesting to give an example of an author who addresses the topics Scott addresses at…

I guess it depends on the audience. As a kid who grew up watching Star Trek, I already knew that humans are illogical. And having been around through the Trump presidency among other things, I know they go berserk over some seemingly innocuous topics, and that you have to be careful to not trigger people. So I didn't need to read 20 pages to absorb those lessons. An analogy: we're mostly experienced programmers here,…

That isn't really the point. The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines. Although some very adept scientists, like Kolmogorov, have managed in situations like this.

More than once I've gotten the impression that people who criticize Scott for verbosity assume he's blah blah blahing about stuff they already understand, when in reality he's thinking a couple levels deeper than they're accustomed to from a blog.

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

#94

Post by RangerScience »

ALittleLight wrote: post #55
RangerScience wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I can. Here's the document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... JD says: "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways", and then has the nice overlapping bimodal distribution graph. In my read, this data is foundational to many of his arguments, but there's a fundamental flaw in his application of it, which is: why you should expect anyone at Google (or, well, any su…

I read your comment opposed to Damore as something like "Damore says this distribution of traits exists in the general population, but it doesn't necessarily exist in the subset of Google." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think that point is true and I think it is the kind of thing where, if Google were considering taking Damore's feedback, they should investigate. Is Google's population of employees noticeably dif…

> something like

Yeah, that's correct. And IMHO, if Damore had presented just that, I would expect the outcome to be different, although still fraught for other reasons. But he didn't present just that.

> questions

You did end up answering them, although in a different chain! And I appreciate it.

> disagreement

I mean, bluntly, I'm pretty much ready to abandon it, although since others are engaging seems like you're good to go without me :)

> conversation

One issue that seems to come up in these situations - not always, and I don't really know one way the other if it came up in Damore's - was recently demonstrated by Dave Chappelle, when he went to his alma mater saying (paraphrased) "let's have a conversation", and then (IMO) very much didn't, even if people said words to each other. So that happens.

> you and others

So... Like. To the extent that I've invited you to a conversation, that we're then having here - do you feel like we're having a conversation, or do you feel like there's more heretic burning?

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

#95

Post by RangerScience »

ALittleLight wrote: post #87
joshuamorton wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know why you are saying "everyone involved agrees that Google doesn't match broad population trends". The gender balance at Google is not representative of the broad population. Presumably there are axes on which Google's demographics match population demographics, but we're talking about one axis where everyone involved agrees that they don't. > Regarding Damore sharing his memo - he shared it in places wh…

While people agree that the genders are imbalanced at Google that doesn't mean there is any reason to think that traits that typically differ within genders differ in different ways within Google. The example I gave previously is of height, I still think that's relevant. Just because Google is X% female and Y% male and X might be, but we have no reason to expect that. Why should we default to other expectations for d…

> what not where

Strong disagree that those are the only two possibilities. I hold that most of the issue was how he presented his thoughts.

Regardless, you'd have to prove, first, that "what" and "where" are the only possibilities before your deduction can be solid.

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

#96

Post by RangerScience »

civilized wrote: post #44
RangerScience wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Have you asked yourself who was emotionally abused in the Damore affair? Who was misrepresented in a defamatory fashion? Who was publicly denounced and fired? Frankly, I think it's sociopathic to emphasize kindness so much as a…

Okay. Well, first, I'd just ask: in the discussion here, do you think I've been inconsistently applying kindness, or, more directly, being unkind to those who disagree with me?

Second, I really don't understand how this should be applied to my assertion that tone matters. Can you walk me through that? Or, am I mistaken in thinking that you're saying you disagree that tone matters?

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

#97

Post by throwaway81523 »

civilized wrote: post #93
throwaway81523 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on the audience. As a kid who grew up watching Star Trek, I already knew that humans are illogical. And having been around through the Trump presidency among other things, I know they go berserk over some seemingly innocuous topics, and that you have to be careful to not trigger people. So I didn't need to read 20 pages to absorb those lessons. An analogy: we're mostly experienced programmers here,…

That isn't really the point. The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines. Although some very adept scientists, like Kolmogorov, have managed in situations like this. More than once I've gotten the impression that people who criticize Scott for verbosity assume he's…

"The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines."

Ok, that is a reasonable distillation. And you just said it in one sentence. Why does it take Scott 20 pages?

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

#98

Post by civilized »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #97
civilized wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't really the point. The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines. Although some very adept scientists, like Kolmogorov, have managed in situations like this. More than once I've gotten the impression that people who criticize Scott for verbosity assume he's…

"The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines." Ok, that is a reasonable distillation. And you just said it in one sentence. Why does it take Scott 20 pages?

Because he's not just making that claim, he's immersing you in why he thinks it's true. By walking you through that world like it's a movie, and pointing out all the inescapable cultural corrosion that follows from letting the world be that way.

Scott knows that people will blithely accept his thesis as obvious... until the moment it matters most, when there is social pressure to accept something untrue. He wants you to feel the price you'll pay if you cave.

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

#99

Post by marcosdumay »

ajuc wrote: post #81
marcosdumay wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be talking from the point of view of the powerful people that created the orthodoxy. If you are pulling a Kolmogorov, it's because you have no attachment at all to the orthodoxy, and you'd prefer nobody to believe on it.

Ah, I didn't realized you were talking from Kolmogorov POV. I don't think exposing the censorship explicitly would be good for his career. Better to explain it to colleagues privately. In oppressive regime everything is a tradeoff between morality and convenience, and you need to pick your battles.

I don't think explicitly saying "we don't discuss politics here" would endanger his career. It may be dangerous if you do it just out of the blue, but if you have any minimally relevant reason, you can state it without fear of persecution.

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

#100

Post by throwaway81523 »

civilized wrote: post #98
throwaway81523 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines." Ok, that is a reasonable distillation. And you just said it in one sentence. Why does it take Scott 20 pages?

Because he's not just making that claim, he's immersing you in why he thinks it's true. By walking you through that world like it's a movie, and pointing out all the inescapable cultural corrosion that follows from letting the world be that way. Scott knows that people will blithely accept his thesis as obvious... until the moment it matters most, when there is social pressure to accept something untrue. He wants you…

Shrug, dystopian novels like 1984 serve that purpose and do a better job imho. I can't speak for other readers but I don't think I got anything from that particular article that I wouldn't have gotten from a version condensed to a few bullet points. There are other SSC/AC10 articles that I liked more, so I do keep reading it sometimes.
Post reply on HN