3 ms·

He does no shaming. If you claim that, you have to quote his words with which he does that, and I believe it will be obvious that your statement is biased. He r

by acqq 9y ago

He does no shaming. If you claim that, you have to quote his words with which he does that, and I believe it will be obvious that your statement is biased. He responds, and explains why: "Anyway, my goal here was never to convince Luboš. I was writing, not for him, but for my other readers: especially for those genuinely unfamiliar with these interesting issues, or intimidated by Luboš’s air of certainty. I felt like I owed it to them to set out, clearly and forcefully, certain facts that all complexity theorists have encountered in their research, but that we hardly ever bother to articulate."

mjburgess 9y ago
You can sympathize with the sentiment of the article, but there is a preoccupied ("shaming"?) quality in places that moves this from an article about P/NP to an article about showing-up a person who believes something about P/NP. Perhaps they needed to be shamed? Who knows. But it is transparent... Quoting: At one point in his post, Luboš actually compares computer scientists who find P≠NP a plausible working hypothesis to his even greater nemesis: the “climate cataclysmic crackpots.” (Strangely, he forgot to compare us to feminists, Communists, Muslim terrorists, or loop quantum gravity theorists.) Even though the P versus NP and global warming issues might not seem closely linked, part of me is thrilled that Luboš has connected them as he has. If, after seeing this ex-physicist’s “thought process” laid bare on the P versus NP problem—how his arrogance and incuriosity lead him to stake out a laughably-absurd position; how his vanity then causes him to double down after his errors are exposed—if, after seeing this, a single person is led to question Lubošian epistemology more generally, then my efforts will not have been in vain. Anyway, now that I’ve finally unmasked Luboš
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Preoccupied ≠ shaming. If you look at the whole debate, you will see that Aaronson is merely responding in the style established by Luboš, and that style uses ridicule (which is also not shaming, though it may be used in it) quite freely.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    Ridiculing is a form of shaming. It might even be the purest form of shaming. Shaming is to make one "embarrassed or guilty because of one's actions, characteristics, or associations." He's literally holding up this guy's character, "vanity, arrogance, incuriosity, laughably-abusrd..." I'm not sure what those characteristics have to do with the P=NP problem. I'm not saying, perhaps, this guy ought not to feel shame for his prior comments. Possibly he should. But this article is a shaming article. It isnt absolved of that because someone else started it.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      "Shaming" denotes ridicule, sure, but is generally used to connote iniquity, i.e. that the one doing the "shaming" is wrong so to do. I think you're getting the pushback you are because you're using this word, with this connotation, to describe a deployment of ridicule whose degree of virtue seems less to you than to others, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837. Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.
      - mjburgess 9y ago
        Well I've said several times that he may deserved to be shamed. > ridicule is earned Your comment only emphasises part of what I've already said. Of course however, he may not. A person who deploys the ridicule of a person's character (over said, the ridiculing of the idea that P=NP) is one who should be aware that this itself has moral downsides and is open to fair criticism.
        throwanem 9y ago
        Pretty sure Motl is being ridiculed for reasons other than not thinking it very unlikely that P=NP. The man seems to have earned a considerable degree of infamy through exactly the kind of behavior Aaronson calls out. And I think you may too casually gloss over the point around connotations; a cursory review of the history of privilege rhetoric would suggest there's more substance there than might initially seem to be, and I think this case is parallel.

by acqq 9y ago

mjburgess 9y ago

You can sympathize with the sentiment of the article, but there is a preoccupied ("shaming"?) quality in places that moves this from an article about P/NP to an article about showing-up a person who believes something about P/NP. Perhaps they needed to be shamed? Who knows. But it is transparent... Quoting: At one point in his post, Luboš actually compares computer scientists who find P≠NP a plausible working hypothesis to his even greater nemesis: the “climate cataclysmic crackpots.” (Strangely, he forgot to compare us to feminists, Communists, Muslim terrorists, or loop quantum gravity theorists.) Even though the P versus NP and global warming issues might not seem closely linked, part of me is thrilled that Luboš has connected them as he has. If, after seeing this ex-physicist’s “thought process” laid bare on the P versus NP problem—how his arrogance and incuriosity lead him to stake out a laughably-absurd position; how his vanity then causes him to double down after his errors are exposed—if, after seeing this, a single person is led to question Lubošian epistemology more generally, then my efforts will not have been in vain. Anyway, now that I’ve finally unmasked Luboš

mannykannot 9y ago
Preoccupied ≠ shaming. If you look at the whole debate, you will see that Aaronson is merely responding in the style established by Luboš, and that style uses ridicule (which is also not shaming, though it may be used in it) quite freely.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  Ridiculing is a form of shaming. It might even be the purest form of shaming. Shaming is to make one "embarrassed or guilty because of one's actions, characteristics, or associations." He's literally holding up this guy's character, "vanity, arrogance, incuriosity, laughably-abusrd..." I'm not sure what those characteristics have to do with the P=NP problem. I'm not saying, perhaps, this guy ought not to feel shame for his prior comments. Possibly he should. But this article is a shaming article. It isnt absolved of that because someone else started it.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    "Shaming" denotes ridicule, sure, but is generally used to connote iniquity, i.e. that the one doing the "shaming" is wrong so to do. I think you're getting the pushback you are because you're using this word, with this connotation, to describe a deployment of ridicule whose degree of virtue seems less to you than to others, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837. Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      Well I've said several times that he may deserved to be shamed. > ridicule is earned Your comment only emphasises part of what I've already said. Of course however, he may not. A person who deploys the ridicule of a person's character (over said, the ridiculing of the idea that P=NP) is one who should be aware that this itself has moral downsides and is open to fair criticism.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Pretty sure Motl is being ridiculed for reasons other than not thinking it very unlikely that P=NP. The man seems to have earned a considerable degree of infamy through exactly the kind of behavior Aaronson calls out. And I think you may too casually gloss over the point around connotations; a cursory review of the history of privilege rhetoric would suggest there's more substance there than might initially seem to be, and I think this case is parallel.