11 ms·

Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

114 points by phab 5y ago

exolymph 5y ago
This was published in response to a lament about James Damore, in case anyone is wondering about the immediate context. The proximate issue was that women and men, on average / in aggregate, are different. But the general principles apply to other issues as well.
- civilized 5y ago
  Ah yes, Mr. Damore. Author of a document the entire prestige media called an "anti-diversity screed" in perfect lockstep, even though anyone could read it for themselves and see it was nothing of the sort. 2017 sure was a year for the history books.
  - RangerScience 5y ago
    I found that JD's document was a moderately anti-diversity screed, tho. I did a deep read (the document, everything the document linked to, most of the things that those linked to) back when it all went down. IMO, while James raised a valid question ("how do we know any of this is working, or even can work?"), some of his mistakes were in attempting to answer it (instead of solidly beginning a conversation); attempting to answer it on his own (instead of recruiting a diverse group of backgrounds to answer it); attempting to present his answers as more substantial than the underlying investigation could support (instead of doing a substantive sociological investigation); in the answers he provided (aligned with historical misogynistic orthodoxy); how he presented those answers (in a way not inviting or encouraging questioning); etc. I really, really wonder what would have happened if he'd sought out diverse co-authors. Ironically, (AFAICT) the entire core issue of diversity in the first place is answering questions from/with only one perspective; and (AFAICT) much of the core issue of equity is having people with one perspective answering important questions for people with a different perspective. So there really wasn't any possible way for him to succeed at anything beyond raising the question, on his own.
    - civilized 5y ago
      I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article. It's about people who had fresh perspectives getting shut down by authorities who were mad about what they said. And how those authorities always have an excuse in terms of something the person didn't say or do perfectly. If Damore didn't perfectly solve America's diversity problems in one swoop, I guess that's a mark against him -- but what about the people who attacked him rather than helping to realize his vision of a more candid, psychologically safe discussion of corporate diversity policy? People like Sundar Pichai, very rich, comfortable, powerful folks who chose to rhetorically demonize Damore rather than showing literally any courage to critique his points in a nuanced way? And no, it wasn't an anti-diversity screed. Powerful people said it was, so now people scramble to say how the powerful people were kinda right. They weren't. They lied.
      - RangerScience 5y ago
        I understand why you're assuming I didn't read the linked article, but I'm not sure (or perhaps disinterested?) in proving that I did. SSC is excellent, has some of my top favorite things on the entire internet, and I don't think I've seen anything from it that I'd consider problematic or of poor quality. TBH, I didn't pay much attention to what others said about JD's document. I saw there was a controversy, looked at a few things about that controversy, then went to the source and came to my own conclusions. Those were some of my conclusions. Sure, JD didn't say diversity was bad. He said something along the lines of what I'll paraphrase as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me." Which, like... if you don't see how that's the problem, I can 100% throw some effort trying to communicate to you how that's the problem. Just ask :) Here's questions: Do you feel like your reply, here, was in any way a critique of my points in a nuanced way? Do you feel like what I've presented of my take on JD's document was a critique of his points in a nuanced way?
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices to focus less on traits that are more represented among men. In other words, Damore does not view diversity problems as insurmountable blockers. Damore also says of himself that he is less likely to be assertive in ways that are rewarded at Google and explains that efforts to appreciate traits that are better represented among women would also benefit men evincing those traits. In other words, Damore doesn't break things down into "people like me" versus "people not like me". It seems like your summary is completely wrong. I've noticed that a lot of Damore critics have very strong opinions that seem not well informed by Damore's actual writing. Can you highlight any specific thing from Damore's document that is wrong?
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    “Prestige media” is a new term I haven’t seen before. It sounds like a classier sounding version of MSM or liberal media or left-leaning outlets. I’m very curious to hear where you first heard that term.
    - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
      Why does it matter where they first heard the term? It feels - based on your presumptions - like you're gearing up to attack them if the source isn't acceptable. (This may be completely inaccurate and I'm just being hypervigilant)
      - jimbob45 5y ago
        I’m on his side on this and certainly don’t want to attack him lol However, I’m curious because it’s a much nicer-sounding term than the alternatives, seemingly engineered. Given the difficulties Conservatives have had in expressing distrust of newspapers, news stations, etc, I’m wondering if it came from a Conservative source.
    - civilized 5y ago
      I'm not sure where I heard it either to be honest. But the idea is that there are some outlets we respect more than others -- perhaps legitimately, based on average quality on most topics, and not putting foot in mouth with blatant falsehoods -- and these outlets have an overwhelming tendency to horribly misrepresent events that touch on certain "culture war" issues.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    The specific context seems almost like a distraction; there is a fundamental issue being raised here. Is there such a thing as a prosocial repeated lie? The existence of a known, obvious and unchangeable inconsistency in the social fabric can paralyse the ability of people to find the truth using logic and reason. Which isn't to say that the discourse has to be logically consistent - it isn't ever going to be. But it should be open to challenges from a logical basis. One of the strengths of western society is that persistently asking "why are we doing [X] it doesn't make sense?" or repeating "there is evidence that approach [Y] gets better results" has often resulted in change. Compared to somewhere like the USSR where the system collapsed before it let people just go out and make their own lives better.
    - Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
      I'm sure you could come up with a hypothetical prosocial falsehood, like "aliens assassinated JFK for petty reasons, but they're very vain and will destroy the Earth if word gets out." If you become President and learn the real story, you damn sure better stick to the script about the grassy knoll! But I think it's also possible to have pro-social taboos, particularly if they're attempts to correct for some indefensible (but maybe cognitively appealing or historically convenient) past error. So for example, imagine a society that long practiced infanticide against the neurodivergent, and state-backed violence, disenfranchisement, and murder against the merely socially awkward. After intense and often violent social struggle, this society now affords them (us) formal equality, but big gaps in wealth and power remain, and a revanchist minority (with a terrorist fringe) openly wishes for a return of the old ways. That society might develop strong taboos against "just asking questions" about whether shy people really had it so bad, or whether society should worry about whether they're treated fairly, or whether there isn't some innate biological difference that accounts for their relative lack of success. That would probably be a good thing! There's some amount of epistemic deadweight loss you would happily accept to be extra guarded against backsliding on the core ethical commitments. You might even come out ahead epistemically, where there would otherwise be strong but subtle cultural biases, pressures of ideological convenience, and cognitive-scientific artifacts around in-groups and out-groups that make _false_ claims about the shy, awkward, or neurodivergent more appealing than the objective facts merit.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  "Men and women are exactly the same in every way that is societally meaningful, but it remains critically important that people can surgically switch between those genders at will."
- Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
  The problem with signing up with an underground Straussian heretic network is that if you're not actually beset by the Inquisition or by Stalinism, you're likelier to trap yourself in an epistemic filter bubble than to discover some secret truth. Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. And rather than grappling with the effects his memo might have had on such a complex environment, or even sticking to pursuing the empirical facts about his claims, he decided to pursue a career as a right-wing micro-celebrity, only engaging with conservative activists and alt-right trolls. And he's been stuck there ever since, with his fellow culture warriors clapping each other on their backs about what brave heretics they are, instead of getting back to building anything interesting.
  - heyitsguay 5y ago
    I think you can draw parallels between that trajectory and the dynamics of "censorship" (moderation) on big social media platforms. You compare Twitter vs. Gab or Reddit vs. Voat, and these free speech alternatives get stuck in that alt-right filter bubble precisely because social media moderation has been largely (certainly not entirely) effective at targeting hatred and toxicity. When you only ban a bunch of hateful toxic people from your platform, any competing platform for the banned will be dominated by hateful toxic people, and nobody wants to be a part of that. If Reddit bans cat pictures tomorrow, suddenly there is a huge opportunity open for a competing platform that can appeal to wide mainstream audiences. This dynamic helps keep social media moderation in check. Similarly, if there had been hard, actionable truth at the core of Damore's claims, there would have been a huge opportunity to gather evidence and observe effects and come up with an organizational system that better reflected the reality of human social relationships. If that wasn't the case, then all he would be left with is the path he seems to have taken - align with a camp in the culture wars and seek exposure through identity-based media.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      >Similarly, if there had been hard, actionable truth at the core of Damore's claims, there would have been a huge opportunity to gather evidence and observe effects and come up with an organizational system that better reflected the reality of human social relationships. Why would the opportunity to change the organizational system have anything to do with whether there was any truth to what he said? Just being right doesn't create such opportunities.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Do you have a link that discusses this?
ptidhomme 5y ago
[flagged]
- AaronFriel 5y ago
  How so?
  - lstodd 5y ago
    Very.
  - resource0x 5y ago
    Worse than yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Except the orthodoxy of COVID-19 vaccine efficiency happens to be scientifically accurate and evolutionary advantageous as well, which is the article's argument promoting Kolmogorov complicity. So let's retire this tired retread without the dignity of yet another thread.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. You put "we won't allow anybody to talk about lightning" on the first paragraph of your institution's code of conduct. You actively censor people discussing it, and do all you can to erase it from their history. On a related matter, people actively insisting that you discuss the lightning issue may be consciously trying to do the exact opposite, and get you in trouble. And, of course, if discussing the orthodoxy gets people in trouble, that's a different issue from the orthodoxy itself and you may be more or free to talk about it, or maybe less, it has to be independently evaluated.
- ajuc 5y ago
  > Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. Nah. That makes it a forbidden fruit attracting rebellious youth like nothing else. I've seen it happen in communist Poland regarding the Katyń massacre for example. You don't outright say "we don't talk about Katyń here" - that would just make it more popular and indirectly admit you are wrong. What you actually do is invent your own version of facts that works emotionally just as well (Germans did it), spread it everywhere, and punish people in a way that is reasonable and provides plausible denial. For example my father (very interested in history since he was a kid) repeated a class in high school because he failed history - giving the "wrong" answers on exams. It's not that they will kill your family - there's no need usually. It's just you're making everything harder for yourself.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    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.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      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.
throwaway81523 5y ago
2017. Raised eyebrows for a moment because slatestarcodex moved to another url a year or so ago.
chrispeel 5y ago
In case you missed it, there is such a thing as "Kolmogorov complexity"; I guess the author is making an alliterative pun by titling the post "Kolmogorov complicity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xondono 5y ago
I miss SSC so much
- thewakalix 5y ago
  In case you're not aware, the author has continued the blog on Substack: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ But if it's just nostalgia, then I agree. Substack is slower, harder to navigate, and less Aesthetic.
  - xondono 5y ago
    I knew, but somehow it feels different. With SCC I spent whole afternoons chasing links, reading and learning. I don’t get that with substack.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      IMHO it's because Substack was not designed with heavy commenting in mind. And its mandatory JavaScript only makes matters worse (good luck getting the position where you were last in the comments saved !)
    - ravi-delia 5y ago
      I definitely miss the vibe of the old SCC. I keep up with all the new posts, but when I feel like killing some time I'll go back through the archive. It has a sort of homey vibe that was lost with the transition to Substack. Of course I'm glad that Scott is receiving the metric tons of money his writing has always deserved, but there's definitely reason for nostalgia.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Substack also gives Scott Alexander shipping containers of money, so I can't be too upset.
Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
He really is an excellent writer, isn't he?
- Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
  Most of his articles could be about a third as long with no loss in clarity. The meandering windups can be _rhetorically_ effective, especially when they appeal to the biases of the reader, as they appeal to mine. But they're not truth-directed, and often obscure weak or blindered reasoinng, as I think they do here.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    I don’t read Scott just to consume new information or ideas, I read his blogs because they’re legitimately a joy to read. You’re right, you could trim a _lot_ of fat from these posts, but at the end of the day if his readers enjoy his prose, I don’t think he has much reason to change.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Isn't this a bit cliche? "It's too long" without engagement with the argument or even with how exactly it is too long? I've just seen this a few too many times in regards to Scott and would like to see someone actually substantiate it.
    - throwaway81523 5y ago
      If you can make the same points with 1/10th as many words, the original was too long. The guy writes extremely well, but could use some practice at editing for brevity. A wikipedia link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance gets partway there.
      - lordgrenville 5y ago
        Distilling it to 10% would get the facts across, but the long build-up of argument makes it much more convincing. Rhetoric is different from, say, technical writing: it optimises not (just) for efficiency but for effectiveness.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xbar 5y ago
Contrary to many places, the comments on SSC provide the better reading.
bronzeage 5y ago
The modern censorship mechanisms don't kill you, they just make everyone question your sanity. If you discuss election fraud, coronavirus coming from Wuhan lab, rich people being pedophiles (Epstein's island), or Epstein being murdered, you're a conspiracy theorist.

114 points by phab 5y ago

This was published in response to a lament about James Damore, in case anyone is wondering about the immediate context. The proximate issue was that women and men, on average / in aggregate, are different. But the general principles apply to other issues as well.

civilized 5y ago
Ah yes, Mr. Damore. Author of a document the entire prestige media called an "anti-diversity screed" in perfect lockstep, even though anyone could read it for themselves and see it was nothing of the sort. 2017 sure was a year for the history books.
- RangerScience 5y ago
  I found that JD's document was a moderately anti-diversity screed, tho. I did a deep read (the document, everything the document linked to, most of the things that those linked to) back when it all went down. IMO, while James raised a valid question ("how do we know any of this is working, or even can work?"), some of his mistakes were in attempting to answer it (instead of solidly beginning a conversation); attempting to answer it on his own (instead of recruiting a diverse group of backgrounds to answer it); attempting to present his answers as more substantial than the underlying investigation could support (instead of doing a substantive sociological investigation); in the answers he provided (aligned with historical misogynistic orthodoxy); how he presented those answers (in a way not inviting or encouraging questioning); etc. I really, really wonder what would have happened if he'd sought out diverse co-authors. Ironically, (AFAICT) the entire core issue of diversity in the first place is answering questions from/with only one perspective; and (AFAICT) much of the core issue of equity is having people with one perspective answering important questions for people with a different perspective. So there really wasn't any possible way for him to succeed at anything beyond raising the question, on his own.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article. It's about people who had fresh perspectives getting shut down by authorities who were mad about what they said. And how those authorities always have an excuse in terms of something the person didn't say or do perfectly. If Damore didn't perfectly solve America's diversity problems in one swoop, I guess that's a mark against him -- but what about the people who attacked him rather than helping to realize his vision of a more candid, psychologically safe discussion of corporate diversity policy? People like Sundar Pichai, very rich, comfortable, powerful folks who chose to rhetorically demonize Damore rather than showing literally any courage to critique his points in a nuanced way? And no, it wasn't an anti-diversity screed. Powerful people said it was, so now people scramble to say how the powerful people were kinda right. They weren't. They lied.
    - RangerScience 5y ago
      I understand why you're assuming I didn't read the linked article, but I'm not sure (or perhaps disinterested?) in proving that I did. SSC is excellent, has some of my top favorite things on the entire internet, and I don't think I've seen anything from it that I'd consider problematic or of poor quality. TBH, I didn't pay much attention to what others said about JD's document. I saw there was a controversy, looked at a few things about that controversy, then went to the source and came to my own conclusions. Those were some of my conclusions. Sure, JD didn't say diversity was bad. He said something along the lines of what I'll paraphrase as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me." Which, like... if you don't see how that's the problem, I can 100% throw some effort trying to communicate to you how that's the problem. Just ask :) Here's questions: Do you feel like your reply, here, was in any way a critique of my points in a nuanced way? Do you feel like what I've presented of my take on JD's document was a critique of his points in a nuanced way?
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices to focus less on traits that are more represented among men. In other words, Damore does not view diversity problems as insurmountable blockers. Damore also says of himself that he is less likely to be assertive in ways that are rewarded at Google and explains that efforts to appreciate traits that are better represented among women would also benefit men evincing those traits. In other words, Damore doesn't break things down into "people like me" versus "people not like me". It seems like your summary is completely wrong. I've noticed that a lot of Damore critics have very strong opinions that seem not well informed by Damore's actual writing. Can you highlight any specific thing from Damore's document that is wrong?
- jimbob45 5y ago
  “Prestige media” is a new term I haven’t seen before. It sounds like a classier sounding version of MSM or liberal media or left-leaning outlets. I’m very curious to hear where you first heard that term.
  - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
    Why does it matter where they first heard the term? It feels - based on your presumptions - like you're gearing up to attack them if the source isn't acceptable. (This may be completely inaccurate and I'm just being hypervigilant)
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      I’m on his side on this and certainly don’t want to attack him lol However, I’m curious because it’s a much nicer-sounding term than the alternatives, seemingly engineered. Given the difficulties Conservatives have had in expressing distrust of newspapers, news stations, etc, I’m wondering if it came from a Conservative source.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I'm not sure where I heard it either to be honest. But the idea is that there are some outlets we respect more than others -- perhaps legitimately, based on average quality on most topics, and not putting foot in mouth with blatant falsehoods -- and these outlets have an overwhelming tendency to horribly misrepresent events that touch on certain "culture war" issues.
- roenxi 5y ago
  The specific context seems almost like a distraction; there is a fundamental issue being raised here. Is there such a thing as a prosocial repeated lie? The existence of a known, obvious and unchangeable inconsistency in the social fabric can paralyse the ability of people to find the truth using logic and reason. Which isn't to say that the discourse has to be logically consistent - it isn't ever going to be. But it should be open to challenges from a logical basis. One of the strengths of western society is that persistently asking "why are we doing [X] it doesn't make sense?" or repeating "there is evidence that approach [Y] gets better results" has often resulted in change. Compared to somewhere like the USSR where the system collapsed before it let people just go out and make their own lives better.
  - Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
    I'm sure you could come up with a hypothetical prosocial falsehood, like "aliens assassinated JFK for petty reasons, but they're very vain and will destroy the Earth if word gets out." If you become President and learn the real story, you damn sure better stick to the script about the grassy knoll! But I think it's also possible to have pro-social taboos, particularly if they're attempts to correct for some indefensible (but maybe cognitively appealing or historically convenient) past error. So for example, imagine a society that long practiced infanticide against the neurodivergent, and state-backed violence, disenfranchisement, and murder against the merely socially awkward. After intense and often violent social struggle, this society now affords them (us) formal equality, but big gaps in wealth and power remain, and a revanchist minority (with a terrorist fringe) openly wishes for a return of the old ways. That society might develop strong taboos against "just asking questions" about whether shy people really had it so bad, or whether society should worry about whether they're treated fairly, or whether there isn't some innate biological difference that accounts for their relative lack of success. That would probably be a good thing! There's some amount of epistemic deadweight loss you would happily accept to be extra guarded against backsliding on the core ethical commitments. You might even come out ahead epistemically, where there would otherwise be strong but subtle cultural biases, pressures of ideological convenience, and cognitive-scientific artifacts around in-groups and out-groups that make _false_ claims about the shy, awkward, or neurodivergent more appealing than the objective facts merit.
bpodgursky 5y ago
"Men and women are exactly the same in every way that is societally meaningful, but it remains critically important that people can surgically switch between those genders at will."
Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
The problem with signing up with an underground Straussian heretic network is that if you're not actually beset by the Inquisition or by Stalinism, you're likelier to trap yourself in an epistemic filter bubble than to discover some secret truth. Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. And rather than grappling with the effects his memo might have had on such a complex environment, or even sticking to pursuing the empirical facts about his claims, he decided to pursue a career as a right-wing micro-celebrity, only engaging with conservative activists and alt-right trolls. And he's been stuck there ever since, with his fellow culture warriors clapping each other on their backs about what brave heretics they are, instead of getting back to building anything interesting.
- heyitsguay 5y ago
  I think you can draw parallels between that trajectory and the dynamics of "censorship" (moderation) on big social media platforms. You compare Twitter vs. Gab or Reddit vs. Voat, and these free speech alternatives get stuck in that alt-right filter bubble precisely because social media moderation has been largely (certainly not entirely) effective at targeting hatred and toxicity. When you only ban a bunch of hateful toxic people from your platform, any competing platform for the banned will be dominated by hateful toxic people, and nobody wants to be a part of that. If Reddit bans cat pictures tomorrow, suddenly there is a huge opportunity open for a competing platform that can appeal to wide mainstream audiences. This dynamic helps keep social media moderation in check. Similarly, if there had been hard, actionable truth at the core of Damore's claims, there would have been a huge opportunity to gather evidence and observe effects and come up with an organizational system that better reflected the reality of human social relationships. If that wasn't the case, then all he would be left with is the path he seems to have taken - align with a camp in the culture wars and seek exposure through identity-based media.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    >Similarly, if there had been hard, actionable truth at the core of Damore's claims, there would have been a huge opportunity to gather evidence and observe effects and come up with an organizational system that better reflected the reality of human social relationships. Why would the opportunity to change the organizational system have anything to do with whether there was any truth to what he said? Just being right doesn't create such opportunities.
nextaccountic 5y ago
Do you have a link that discusses this?

ptidhomme 5y ago

[flagged]

AaronFriel 5y ago
How so?
- lstodd 5y ago
  Very.
- resource0x 5y ago
  Worse than yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
tomrod 5y ago
Except the orthodoxy of COVID-19 vaccine efficiency happens to be scientifically accurate and evolutionary advantageous as well, which is the article's argument promoting Kolmogorov complicity. So let's retire this tired retread without the dignity of yet another thread.

marcosdumay 5y ago

Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. You put "we won't allow anybody to talk about lightning" on the first paragraph of your institution's code of conduct. You actively censor people discussing it, and do all you can to erase it from their history. On a related matter, people actively insisting that you discuss the lightning issue may be consciously trying to do the exact opposite, and get you in trouble. And, of course, if discussing the orthodoxy gets people in trouble, that's a different issue from the orthodoxy itself and you may be more or free to talk about it, or maybe less, it has to be independently evaluated.

ajuc 5y ago
> Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. Nah. That makes it a forbidden fruit attracting rebellious youth like nothing else. I've seen it happen in communist Poland regarding the Katyń massacre for example. You don't outright say "we don't talk about Katyń here" - that would just make it more popular and indirectly admit you are wrong. What you actually do is invent your own version of facts that works emotionally just as well (Germans did it), spread it everywhere, and punish people in a way that is reasonable and provides plausible denial. For example my father (very interested in history since he was a kid) repeated a class in high school because he failed history - giving the "wrong" answers on exams. It's not that they will kill your family - there's no need usually. It's just you're making everything harder for yourself.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  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.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    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.

throwaway81523 5y ago

2017. Raised eyebrows for a moment because slatestarcodex moved to another url a year or so ago.

chrispeel 5y ago

In case you missed it, there is such a thing as "Kolmogorov complexity"; I guess the author is making an alliterative pun by titling the post "Kolmogorov complicity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xondono 5y ago

I miss SSC so much

thewakalix 5y ago
In case you're not aware, the author has continued the blog on Substack: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ But if it's just nostalgia, then I agree. Substack is slower, harder to navigate, and less Aesthetic.
- xondono 5y ago
  I knew, but somehow it feels different. With SCC I spent whole afternoons chasing links, reading and learning. I don’t get that with substack.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    IMHO it's because Substack was not designed with heavy commenting in mind. And its mandatory JavaScript only makes matters worse (good luck getting the position where you were last in the comments saved !)
  - ravi-delia 5y ago
    I definitely miss the vibe of the old SCC. I keep up with all the new posts, but when I feel like killing some time I'll go back through the archive. It has a sort of homey vibe that was lost with the transition to Substack. Of course I'm glad that Scott is receiving the metric tons of money his writing has always deserved, but there's definitely reason for nostalgia.
- civilized 5y ago
  Substack also gives Scott Alexander shipping containers of money, so I can't be too upset.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago

He really is an excellent writer, isn't he?

Lambent_Cactus 5y ago
Most of his articles could be about a third as long with no loss in clarity. The meandering windups can be _rhetorically_ effective, especially when they appeal to the biases of the reader, as they appeal to mine. But they're not truth-directed, and often obscure weak or blindered reasoinng, as I think they do here.
- honkdaddy 5y ago
  I don’t read Scott just to consume new information or ideas, I read his blogs because they’re legitimately a joy to read. You’re right, you could trim a _lot_ of fat from these posts, but at the end of the day if his readers enjoy his prose, I don’t think he has much reason to change.
- civilized 5y ago
  Isn't this a bit cliche? "It's too long" without engagement with the argument or even with how exactly it is too long? I've just seen this a few too many times in regards to Scott and would like to see someone actually substantiate it.
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    If you can make the same points with 1/10th as many words, the original was too long. The guy writes extremely well, but could use some practice at editing for brevity. A wikipedia link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance gets partway there.
    - lordgrenville 5y ago
      Distilling it to 10% would get the facts across, but the long build-up of argument makes it much more convincing. Rhetoric is different from, say, technical writing: it optimises not (just) for efficiency but for effectiveness.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xbar 5y ago

Contrary to many places, the comments on SSC provide the better reading.

bronzeage 5y ago

The modern censorship mechanisms don't kill you, they just make everyone question your sanity. If you discuss election fraud, coronavirus coming from Wuhan lab, rich people being pedophiles (Epstein's island), or Epstein being murdered, you're a conspiracy theorist.