The Kolmogorov option(scottaaronson.com)
scottaaronson.com
The Kolmogorov option
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376
464 comments
Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability within subgroups of the population. In contrast to the minefields that Kolmogorov deliberately avoided, this minefield was not put in place by a repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic band of social-justice zealots.
My observation, which I will offer without citation, is that this particular minefield was put in place, mine by mine, over a period of decades, through a process of fairly broad societal consensus.
To those who suggest clearing the minefield, thus permitting this topic to be discussed freely in public, I will invoke the principle of Chesterton's fence [1]: Before you talk of removing the mines, you need to show that you understand why the minefield was created in the first place, and you need to explain why now is the time to remove it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
My observation, which I will offer without citation, is that this particular minefield was put in place, mine by mine, over a period of decades, through a process of fairly broad societal consensus.
To those who suggest clearing the minefield, thus permitting this topic to be discussed freely in public, I will invoke the principle of Chesterton's fence [1]: Before you talk of removing the mines, you need to show that you understand why the minefield was created in the first place, and you need to explain why now is the time to remove it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
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 with the flow for as long as it's tolerable to him.
But this, on the other hand, would create an odd situation where actually the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish. Which I also think is actually much more likelier than what he's putting forward. True crusaders are rare, most of people are "just following orders".
But this, on the other hand, would create an odd situation where actually the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish. Which I also think is actually much more likelier than what he's putting forward. True crusaders are rare, most of people are "just following orders".
What I find myself wanting to fight is not the prevailing views on a topic, it's the willingness to lie and mislead to promote those views. I saw that this past week with the Google memo situation. I also saw a shocking amount of it last year with the US election. Sloppy journalism feeds the people who seem to want to believe the worst in everything, who in turn feed entire social networks. Eventually sufficient people have heard a thing that the network as a whole believes it. Individuals have little influence. I suppose public consciousness (and social media in particular) could be thought of as a big NN.
I don't know anything about Kolmogorov, so I can't evaluate the assumption that he obviously saw through the lies and was horrified by the brutality - but I will note that a great number of prominent intellectuals, who were in absolutely no private danger from the soviet regime whatever they'd believe and say, and who definitely had access to information about the brutality, who still chose to support and defend the regime.
Without evidence to the contrary, it's plausible that Kolmogorov simply supported his government and found the brutality to be acceptable collateral damage.
If we've learned anything from the 20th century, one thing should be the lesson that even very smart people can be found supporting extreme brutality in support of an ideology.
Without evidence to the contrary, it's plausible that Kolmogorov simply supported his government and found the brutality to be acceptable collateral damage.
If we've learned anything from the 20th century, one thing should be the lesson that even very smart people can be found supporting extreme brutality in support of an ideology.
A bit of game theory might be useful - https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c...
Riots and revolutions are difficult to start because of a number of obstacles:
* It is not clear how many sympathizers you have.
* Even if you believe you have the numbers, being the first to act may result in you being made an example of by the authorities.
It's smarter then to rely on more ambiguous signals. Playing stupid is a good way to do this. The problem is, the people who want to "stick it to the man" are generally young people who still process emotions with their amygdala - they can't keep their ego in check and pretend they don't realize they are contradicting the official doctrine.
It's fun to think you can be like Martin Luther, nailing The 95 Theses to the church door. We only hear about Martin Luther because of a quite literal survivor bias. Also, Luther survived because he claimed to not be challenging the Vatican's authority, but simply having a scholarly debate. He was also quite lucky that the secular authorities were lenient (perhaps for political reasons - there were lessor nobles who weren't so keen on the Holy Roman Emperor's authority).
Riots and revolutions are difficult to start because of a number of obstacles:
* It is not clear how many sympathizers you have.
* Even if you believe you have the numbers, being the first to act may result in you being made an example of by the authorities.
It's smarter then to rely on more ambiguous signals. Playing stupid is a good way to do this. The problem is, the people who want to "stick it to the man" are generally young people who still process emotions with their amygdala - they can't keep their ego in check and pretend they don't realize they are contradicting the official doctrine.
It's fun to think you can be like Martin Luther, nailing The 95 Theses to the church door. We only hear about Martin Luther because of a quite literal survivor bias. Also, Luther survived because he claimed to not be challenging the Vatican's authority, but simply having a scholarly debate. He was also quite lucky that the secular authorities were lenient (perhaps for political reasons - there were lessor nobles who weren't so keen on the Holy Roman Emperor's authority).
I want to say this as respectfully as I can, but it isn't easy: the quality of discourse on these topics is really low on HN.
At the same time I do think it's really important for them to be discussed.
Time and again, though, I'm disappointed by how reductive and unmeditative these discussions are. I'm also surprised by how angry people seem.
This is a site used by a lot of very smart people, but I think there is an element of people transferring the confidence of their domain expertise from one area into another, without noticing that they've crossed that border.
I think people need to approach these topics with a humility they wouldn't need to bring to say, hashing algorithms or distributed databases.
edit: typo
At the same time I do think it's really important for them to be discussed.
Time and again, though, I'm disappointed by how reductive and unmeditative these discussions are. I'm also surprised by how angry people seem.
This is a site used by a lot of very smart people, but I think there is an element of people transferring the confidence of their domain expertise from one area into another, without noticing that they've crossed that border.
I think people need to approach these topics with a humility they wouldn't need to bring to say, hashing algorithms or distributed databases.
edit: typo
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's literally hard to have those 'hey, that's funny' moments. And when I do, it's easy to dismiss them. I haven't thought as deeply as the worldview A people, i'm probably forgetting some minor detail. Worldview B people are trained scientists, who spend years honing the 'hey that's funny' detector. I can't compete with that.
Maybe i'm weird. I don't think so. I've had my insights about programming problems, but there are so many topics where i'm simply ignorant. There are so many subjects where i'm a fish, i can't see the water.
The author brought up sexual orientation. I am not a human sexuality researcher. I don't care to be one. My information comes from the culture i live in. I was incredibly happy for friends that were able to marry. If i lived a hundred years ago, i strongly doubt i would hold that same view.
I agree with the author, because culture creates defaults. Push culture when you can. Make better defaults. Most people don't change the factory settings. They are lazy. Or busy. Or really just don't care.
When worldview A is dominant, problems are framed in terms of A. It's literally hard to have those 'hey, that's funny' moments. And when I do, it's easy to dismiss them. I haven't thought as deeply as the worldview A people, i'm probably forgetting some minor detail. Worldview B people are trained scientists, who spend years honing the 'hey that's funny' detector. I can't compete with that.
Maybe i'm weird. I don't think so. I've had my insights about programming problems, but there are so many topics where i'm simply ignorant. There are so many subjects where i'm a fish, i can't see the water.
The author brought up sexual orientation. I am not a human sexuality researcher. I don't care to be one. My information comes from the culture i live in. I was incredibly happy for friends that were able to marry. If i lived a hundred years ago, i strongly doubt i would hold that same view.
I agree with the author, because culture creates defaults. Push culture when you can. Make better defaults. Most people don't change the factory settings. They are lazy. Or busy. Or really just don't care.
I really enjoyed reading the The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about the state of mind of the population during Stalin leadership. He relates the story of a conference of the party where nobody in the room dared to be the last one to stop applauding in honor of Stalin.
After a while everybody started to realize how stupid the situation was, yet they couldn't stop clapping because they all knew that this would be a death sentence for the first one to do so.
After a while everybody started to realize how stupid the situation was, yet they couldn't stop clapping because they all knew that this would be a death sentence for the first one to do so.
Two things:
* for a society that enjoys even minimal levels of freedom of speech, the Kolmogorov option isn't easily distinguishable from opportunism or careerism. * for a society like the U.S. that enjoys minimal levels of freedom of speech, what is an example of an unspeakable truth? Charles Murray's research exists. Brendan Eich is still rich. Richard Stallman has an extremely unpopular opinion about child porn on his website and he still does talks to people who worship the ground he walks on.
Frankly, it seems like the height of narcissism for a tenured professor to defend not speaking out against Trump by appealing to Kolmogorov.
It would be so refreshing to see the author instead appeal to Occam's razor and just call it cowardice.
Edit: grammar
* for a society that enjoys even minimal levels of freedom of speech, the Kolmogorov option isn't easily distinguishable from opportunism or careerism. * for a society like the U.S. that enjoys minimal levels of freedom of speech, what is an example of an unspeakable truth? Charles Murray's research exists. Brendan Eich is still rich. Richard Stallman has an extremely unpopular opinion about child porn on his website and he still does talks to people who worship the ground he walks on.
Frankly, it seems like the height of narcissism for a tenured professor to defend not speaking out against Trump by appealing to Kolmogorov.
It would be so refreshing to see the author instead appeal to Occam's razor and just call it cowardice.
Edit: grammar
The difference, of course, between Galileo and Kolmogorov is that people are aware of Galileo. Acquiescing keeps intellectuals comfortable, but that's about all you can say for it.
There's been a few of these articles linked on HN recently, including Paul Graham's original http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, with a more or less identical thesis (be quiet) that camouflages real message: that the author is signalling support for the heresy, carefully.
There's been a few of these articles linked on HN recently, including Paul Graham's original http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, with a more or less identical thesis (be quiet) that camouflages real message: that the author is signalling support for the heresy, carefully.
This quote comes to mind:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
One problem with creating an island of reason in what is apparently a sea of chaos is that the values that are cherished: reason, truth, rationality and merit are quite possibly the very things the regime is trying to suppress - or at least use a fuel for their outrage in order to promote their views and desire to be seen and hear at the expense of everything else.
The problem I see here now is that the regime is much more distributed with no apparent central authority to work against, however quietly. Comparisons have been made with the Soviet Union, the Vatican and the Nazis but they were all based on an ideology. Social outrage, social signaling and self-righteousness are more fundamental characteristics of humans' group behaviour than politics and for that reason it will be much harder to oppose and even harder to change.
A more apt example might be the effort it took/will take to topple slavery - which despite the change won in the Americas still unhappily exists today in other forms. Other fundamental beliefs can be so deeply rooted in culture that they persist for many hundreds of years and change, even it if is superficial, can take a very long time.
The problem I see here now is that the regime is much more distributed with no apparent central authority to work against, however quietly. Comparisons have been made with the Soviet Union, the Vatican and the Nazis but they were all based on an ideology. Social outrage, social signaling and self-righteousness are more fundamental characteristics of humans' group behaviour than politics and for that reason it will be much harder to oppose and even harder to change.
A more apt example might be the effort it took/will take to topple slavery - which despite the change won in the Americas still unhappily exists today in other forms. Other fundamental beliefs can be so deeply rooted in culture that they persist for many hundreds of years and change, even it if is superficial, can take a very long time.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I took the Kolmogorov option.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-With apologies to Martin Niemöller.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I the Kolmogorov option.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-With apologies to Martin Niemöller.
"As far as I can tell, the answer is simply: because Kolmogorov knew better than to pick fights he couldn’t win."
This is documented in some place and represent Kolmogorov views, or the author is just projecing it's own views and opinions? Because kolmogorov could just have being neutral about the politics in its country (like the majority of people) or perhaps even had some degree of support at the time. This opinion "its obvious that the soviets were E-V-I-L" are opinions coming from the other side of the cold war.
This is documented in some place and represent Kolmogorov views, or the author is just projecing it's own views and opinions? Because kolmogorov could just have being neutral about the politics in its country (like the majority of people) or perhaps even had some degree of support at the time. This opinion "its obvious that the soviets were E-V-I-L" are opinions coming from the other side of the cold war.
I think in his intrepretation of the Kolmogorov's life, Aaronson might be totally missing the evolution of views of someone born in 1903 in Russia and having lived through what followed. It is not like Kolmogorov was parachuted overnight from some free country into the oppressive regime.
Very similar to pg's "What you can't say" essay - http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain"
-- Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain"
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 big piece of it, and was punished by society for it. He is one of the giants whose shoulders we stand on.
Kolmogorov sounds cut of the same cloth. He built a research center, helped other scientists on the way up, and left a legacy.
James Damore is a junior programmer who wrote a 10 page 'manifesto' accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes. This created a textbook hostile work environment,[1] leading to his firing.
The amount of sympathy I've seen here is dismaying. It is illustrating just how far we have to go until equality is the rule of the day. 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.
I will say, some of the heavyweight commenters here do give me hope. tptacek linked this graph[2] on one of the early threads on this. It's a pretty solid rebuttal to any and all concerns that women are innately unsuited to computers rather than that our computer culture has driven them away.
[1]: https://medium.com/@scurphey/googles-response-to-employee-s-...
[2]: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a big piece of it, and was punished by society for it. He is one of the giants whose shoulders we stand on.
Kolmogorov sounds cut of the same cloth. He built a research center, helped other scientists on the way up, and left a legacy.
James Damore is a junior programmer who wrote a 10 page 'manifesto' accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes. This created a textbook hostile work environment,[1] leading to his firing.
The amount of sympathy I've seen here is dismaying. It is illustrating just how far we have to go until equality is the rule of the day. 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.
I will say, some of the heavyweight commenters here do give me hope. tptacek linked this graph[2] on one of the early threads on this. It's a pretty solid rebuttal to any and all concerns that women are innately unsuited to computers rather than that our computer culture has driven them away.
[1]: https://medium.com/@scurphey/googles-response-to-employee-s-...
[2]: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
I'm surprised no one is mentioning Jordan Peterson and the attacks on him. He is quite successful in defending himself speaking his truths.
There's an interesting book about that dynamic where some unknown number of people privately doubt a core public value -- "preference falsification": https://www.amazon.com/Private-Truths-Public-Lies-Falsificat... I read it after the 2016 election, but it's pretty old -- is there newer work anyone can recommend?
> 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.
This essay was so promising, and then turned out to be a pledge of allegiance to the thought police.
Yeah, but many of us, even if aspiring to be our best, will never reach the importance of a Kolmogorov, or a Terry Tao, etc. Our optimal mix of political iconoclasty and mathematical progress may be much much different.
There's a sense in which way the ideal mathematician (or ultramarathoner, or classical composer...) is like a monk. Many of us are not built like that.
There's a sense in which way the ideal mathematician (or ultramarathoner, or classical composer...) is like a monk. Many of us are not built like that.
I'm curious about the remark that Kolmogorov was gay. This is the first time I hear of this. As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, this claim first surfaced in an article at The Mathematical Intelligencer from 2001. Are there any accounts from his contemporaries that would confirm this?
> This is where you build up fortresses of truth in places the ideological authorities don’t particularly understand or care about
Isn't this exactly what safe spaces were originally meant to be?
Isn't this exactly what safe spaces were originally meant to be?
What's the hinted present-day ideology he dare not challenge?
Very much off-topic: I understand the post and the present discussion are not about Kolmogorov's scientific work, but I could not resist pointing out that in addition to all the great things Scott mentioned, Kolmogorov also made significant contributions to fluid turbulence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence#Kolmogorov.27s_theo...) and linear filtering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_filter#History), among many, many other things.
When I reached the comment field at the end of page, to my big surprise the name and email have been already filled in.
In fact, it seems like data of the person last to comment have been present there.
Something along the way have gone quite wrong.
So he's willing to concede space on the scientific landscape in the face of increasingly oppressive 'political correctness'?
Don't research something if it may hurt someones feelings! Great.
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?
“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?
Only it turns out, when you don't decide to argue for that subtle and qualified defense of Damore, a bunch of alt-right internet trolls make some terrible fallacious defenses of things he didn't say. Suddenly, the original censorious instincts seem much more righteous and justified. After all, "Now there are only full-throated red-pillers arguing in Damore's defense! We were right all along!"
Now there are two sides to this issue, and they're both identity politics and brain-dead shouting. Because no one stopped and offered a third option: actually discussing his argument, acknowledging where he was right, and discussing what he got wrong.