3 ms·

Alternative title: why I will probably never get a job in a number of companies by stringing along political controversy. In all seriousness, he knew the clima

by nyxtom 9y ago

Alternative title: why I will probably never get a job in a number of companies by stringing along political controversy. In all seriousness, he knew the climate; made a prediction about that climate and chose to prove it correct - even string it along after being fired. It is almost a tragic irony that despite his biology background, he failed (or perhaps intended to be fired) to see the evolutionary case for collective altruistic punishment. In a data oriented climate like Google, there are other approaches that could of been taken to address the individualism-collectivism/relational scales by actually conducting and collection data from employees. The principle prediction boils down to: it is likely that I will be fired for saying these things, here is some conclusions I came across, watch as the community proves me correct. Based on this approach and his appearance in alt-right videos/blogs, I can only conclude he wanted to instigate chaos rather than have a data driven discourse by conducting surveys and opinions from collegues. As such, it is not unlike calling your friend up and prefacing an insult by saying: you are likely to be hostile from what I am about to say. That's not being fired for group think, that's being fired for instigating chaos. If he had done alternative approachs, it is likely things may of been better received given that a number of people within and out of the community appear to have some lines of reasoning to agree with. Heck, even Sundar saw merit in discussing some points.

dfps 9y ago
Why should he have to?
- nyxtom 9y ago
  He doesn't, but he made a prediction and was proved correct and thus was fired as a result of the nature and dynamics of altruistic punishment. I claim that his observations and claims about the diversity policy were merely a footnote in a much more pointed argument. That is to say, the diversity policy was not really what he intended to gain from this controversy but rather make it a point to focus on politics, which is toxic enough in this society. We don't need another talking head (left or right)
  - dfps 9y ago
    I didn't get that impression from reading it. There seemed a "political" (if you want to call it that, but really it was more just what a person thinks is right vs wrong and voicing that to try to convince people of it - ie altruistic) part of it - his motivation had a color of mild/repressed outrage, which showed up, but it was fairly broad and illustrated with lots of points/considerations about the diversity controversy. I don't think a person can downplay the 'politics' part just because its 'toxic' in society, because that is the whole point, impetus, and the only reason readers will pay attention to a thing. Second, do you have some jumping off point for learning about 'collective altruistic punishment'? After seeing you use that term I want to learn more about it, but Google search doesn't show results that relate to the type of situation we're talking about here (blind punishment of a wellmeaning member who actually doesn't do anything wrong other than put the majority in a position they don't want to be in and possibly confront their own 'wrongthinking' or 'wrongdoing'). I really want to learn more about the concept if you have a link or some?
    - nyxtom 9y ago
      Some research will attribute group cooperation as a fundamental necessity in human progress (given that it is almost impossible that we got anywhere without specialization of tasks and an inherit need to cooperate between groups). Other research points to egalitarian motives that deal with equality between people. For instance, high earners at the expense of the lower earners. Perhaps the egalitarian motives have to due with concentration of power over others. That typically access to survival becomes increasingly limited as power is concentrated. These attributes are different than the evolutionary concern of competitiveness and a will to survive; but certainly there is evidence of both being the case. I should note that there is no way that biology will simply distinguish between a well-meaning deflector and one who is antagonizing a group (such that there is another way to explain it). There is a lot of history of great thinkers who challenged conventional thinking and were persecuted to the fullest extent of the time. I claim that the way most groups justify moral perception and punishment inequalities can be attributed to this evolutionary concept. From justification of slavery (indeed even the repercussions of standing up against slavery was met with changes in laws, and increase deterrents). What is particularly telling is the impact of having this content go widespread in modern society on the internet in the form of social media. It truly brings all of the subgroups that participate online in this discussion to be motivated (from an evolutionary standpoint) to make their case heard in an effort to persuade the group or general direction of behavior between people (whether in small social communities like HN or larger in Twitter, or between small teams...etc). https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html?foxtrotcallback=true https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a... https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature03256.html https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature... The base of the argument is that it doesn't really matter if it's well-intended or not; whether the content of the article is factual or deliberately bias or filled with hateful rhetoric. The only thing that matters is collective moral perception and the emergent properties of social structures (from the smallest group to the largest society). This is evident in fact by how a smaller group of people were not as hostile towards the author but the large viral group was. This merits the idea that approach to varying groups dynamics is an important factor to consider when challenging the norm. Thought provoking indeed! Notes: __ Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice. __ Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his ideas about reforming Christianity – it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva - copies of his book were accompanied for good measure. The Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was trialled and convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. His research was instantly criticized by the Catholic Church for going against the established scripture that places Earth and not the Sun at the center of the universe. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for his heliocentric views and was required to "abjure, curse and detest" his opinions. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts were banned.
nyxtom 9y ago
It's worth mentioning (if it fancies interest) that the individualism-collectivism and relational scales vary across cultures. Conclusions about these scales and overlaps as it relates to gender and culture in and of themselves fall prey to cultural bias. "Culture, gender and self. A perspective from individualism-collectivism research" http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/Kashimaetal1995.pdf http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/Kashimaetal1995.pdf

by nyxtom 9y ago

dfps 9y ago

Why should he have to?

nyxtom 9y ago
He doesn't, but he made a prediction and was proved correct and thus was fired as a result of the nature and dynamics of altruistic punishment. I claim that his observations and claims about the diversity policy were merely a footnote in a much more pointed argument. That is to say, the diversity policy was not really what he intended to gain from this controversy but rather make it a point to focus on politics, which is toxic enough in this society. We don't need another talking head (left or right)
- dfps 9y ago
  I didn't get that impression from reading it. There seemed a "political" (if you want to call it that, but really it was more just what a person thinks is right vs wrong and voicing that to try to convince people of it - ie altruistic) part of it - his motivation had a color of mild/repressed outrage, which showed up, but it was fairly broad and illustrated with lots of points/considerations about the diversity controversy. I don't think a person can downplay the 'politics' part just because its 'toxic' in society, because that is the whole point, impetus, and the only reason readers will pay attention to a thing. Second, do you have some jumping off point for learning about 'collective altruistic punishment'? After seeing you use that term I want to learn more about it, but Google search doesn't show results that relate to the type of situation we're talking about here (blind punishment of a wellmeaning member who actually doesn't do anything wrong other than put the majority in a position they don't want to be in and possibly confront their own 'wrongthinking' or 'wrongdoing'). I really want to learn more about the concept if you have a link or some?
  - nyxtom 9y ago
    Some research will attribute group cooperation as a fundamental necessity in human progress (given that it is almost impossible that we got anywhere without specialization of tasks and an inherit need to cooperate between groups). Other research points to egalitarian motives that deal with equality between people. For instance, high earners at the expense of the lower earners. Perhaps the egalitarian motives have to due with concentration of power over others. That typically access to survival becomes increasingly limited as power is concentrated. These attributes are different than the evolutionary concern of competitiveness and a will to survive; but certainly there is evidence of both being the case. I should note that there is no way that biology will simply distinguish between a well-meaning deflector and one who is antagonizing a group (such that there is another way to explain it). There is a lot of history of great thinkers who challenged conventional thinking and were persecuted to the fullest extent of the time. I claim that the way most groups justify moral perception and punishment inequalities can be attributed to this evolutionary concept. From justification of slavery (indeed even the repercussions of standing up against slavery was met with changes in laws, and increase deterrents). What is particularly telling is the impact of having this content go widespread in modern society on the internet in the form of social media. It truly brings all of the subgroups that participate online in this discussion to be motivated (from an evolutionary standpoint) to make their case heard in an effort to persuade the group or general direction of behavior between people (whether in small social communities like HN or larger in Twitter, or between small teams...etc). https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html?foxtrotcallback=true https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a... https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature03256.html https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature... The base of the argument is that it doesn't really matter if it's well-intended or not; whether the content of the article is factual or deliberately bias or filled with hateful rhetoric. The only thing that matters is collective moral perception and the emergent properties of social structures (from the smallest group to the largest society). This is evident in fact by how a smaller group of people were not as hostile towards the author but the large viral group was. This merits the idea that approach to varying groups dynamics is an important factor to consider when challenging the norm. Thought provoking indeed! Notes: __ Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice. __ Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his ideas about reforming Christianity – it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva - copies of his book were accompanied for good measure. The Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was trialled and convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. His research was instantly criticized by the Catholic Church for going against the established scripture that places Earth and not the Sun at the center of the universe. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for his heliocentric views and was required to "abjure, curse and detest" his opinions. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts were banned.

nyxtom 9y ago

It's worth mentioning (if it fancies interest) that the individualism-collectivism and relational scales vary across cultures. Conclusions about these scales and overlaps as it relates to gender and culture in and of themselves fall prey to cultural bias. "Culture, gender and self. A perspective from individualism-collectivism research" http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/Kashimaetal1995.pdf http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/Kashimaetal1995.pdf