alexryan

Sorry, but if you don't have the courage to speak your truth, then you deserve the chains of slavery that you choose to wear and the dearth of self-respect that comes with it.

If you've spent your entire life wiring your brain to fight "oppression", what do you do after the war has been won decisively? It's not easy to rewire your brain. This is especially true when your job depends upon the existence of "oppression" and you have no other marketable skills.

Fair.

It meets the human need to relieve pain.

I did not mean to imply that it always does so in a moral way.

Clearly it does not.

Fair. I kind of assumed that is was obvious that those who succeed in developing superior products and services attract more customers, do more business, and thus acquire more value to reinvest and grow than those who do not. Am I missing something?

Small sample size? I believe there are a few private for-profit companies which have discovered a new idea or two.

> Re AT&T - I don't see how that indicates private companies are good for getting basic research done in general.

True. But it is evidence against the proposition that basic research can only be done in public institutions. Which organizational form is better at doing it seems to be an open question.

If the basic research in question has applications that potentially meet real human needs and thus is of value, I would presume that private corporations would step forward to meet those needs if public institutions were not doing so.

> conservatives believe the government is awful for most things, and research instead be done by private corporations.

This seems entirely rational to me. A private corporation must strive to meet real human needs in order to survive. Capital tends to flow towards those who are best able to convert it into happiness for other human beings. Public institutions have no such constraint. Logically, one would conclude that they would be less efficient at converting capital into happiness for other human beings.

Is there any evidence of which I should be aware which supports the proposition that publicly funded research outperforms privately funded research?

Aggression is usually skillful when targeted at improving the predictive model which led to undesired circumstances and usually unskillful when targeted at individuals. The brain evolved to enable survival machines for genes to make predictions. He who builds the best predictive model fastest wins.

> I mean I get it, greed and flexible morality result in exploitation of the masses, but it is not unique to tech.

With wall street, we knew that we were dealing with people of low character because they were open about it. “greed is good” was the motto

With silicon valley, the tech companies portrayed themselves as do-gooder “don’t be evil” types on a mission of contribution and some of us were naive enough to believe it. Big difference.

I think we tend to hate those who betray our trust us more strongly than those who are honest about their intentions.

A recent video on this concept by BigThink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jrrY2otrJk

> I’ll be looking at ways to take in feedback

James Damore worked on the search team. We all know how much his feedback was appreciated by Google execs. Personally, I will not consider trusting Google again unless and until Larry and Sergey issue a public apology to James and seek to make amends. That's my feedback.

Quillette: Smearing Free Thought In Silicon Valley http://quillette.com/2017/09/25/smearing-free-thought-silico...

The 2 types of meditation that I practice I are mindfulness and concentration. Mindfulness practice has enabled me to become aware of the arising of unskillful compulsions, the habitual patterns of thought which give rise to them and to halt their progress. Concentration practice, on the other hand, builds the muscle of attention so that it becomes easier to stay focused and fully absorbed on whatever target you select. I have found that the combination of the 2 has enabled me rewire less skillful habitual patterns of thought and to replace them with more skillful patterns. I have found the instruction of Gil Fronsdal at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City to be the most valuable.

"All objectionable behavior is a tragic expression of an unmet need". ~Marshall Rosenberg

The impulse to silence people whose speech is objectionable is understandable. We have all felt it. But it is profoundly misguided.

Zero-sum solutions are inherently unstable.

> Surely you must agree that any kind of unconscious bias (or conscious, for that matter) is undesirable? How can an organization claim to be a meritocracy if members of marginalized groups are treated unfairly compared to members of the majority group?

Everybody has biases. SJWs have biases as well. James Damore pointed out some of them and he got slandered, shamed, death threats, robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family. After that experience, I think its reasonable to conclude that SJWs are not acting in good faith when it comes to having an open discussion about biases.

Furthermore, there is ZERO scientific evidence for unconscious bias and microaggressions against "marginalized groups".

I cite the research of Psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University: “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.”

Re: > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie.

While it may be true that SJWs are not fully aware of the historical origins of their ideology, it is a fact that postmodernism was borne when the french intellectuals (marxists) confronted with the horrors of communism chose to reformulate their philosophy to concentrate on identity politics instead of class war. The following book provides a good history of this:

Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) by Stephen R. C. Hicks

Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of perpetual victimhood. As such they are always in conflict with everyone and generally suck the joy out of life. I find them intolerable and want to keep them as far away from me as possible.

Not a logical statement. It is entirely possible to value merit over diversity.

This is a really great idea. Please consider adding value ranking. For example, many people might value both meritocracy and diversity but valuing one more highly than another creates a completely different culture. P.S. Please consider adding "meritocracy" as a value.

It's certainly true that companies seem to get corrupted as they get larger, but does it HAVE to be that way? Many of us are totally cool with very large companies so long as we believe them to be led by people of good character. My hypotheses is that growing companies are magnets to people of low character and if you don’t have a strategy for dealing with that, they will infiltrate and destroy the company.

While it is true that all of us are naturally more cautious about being in a relationship with a party whose ability cause harm to us is strong and growing stronger, many of us are totally okay with that so long as we believe that party to be of impeccable character. Of late, Google has been failing the character test spectacularly. I still believe Larry and Sergey to be men of good character and can’t quite understand why they are allowing their company to be irreparably damaged.

What bothers me most about this article is how all of us, when we feel threatened, tend to close off our empathy for the other side which prevents us from seeing clearly that they too feel threatened. We both come across as selfish and uncaring to the other and are completely oblivious to the fact that we are doing exactly the same thing ourselves.

Marshall Rosenberg used to say that “all objectionable behavior is a tragic expression of an unmet need”. That’s worth thinking about because it points the way towards an actual solution to the problem.

The simple “nonviolent communication” method that he developed was designed to help people to break down the barriers of hostility and connect in a fashion that enables both parties to achieve a mutually satisfying resolution and a closer and more fulfilling relationship. I have found it to work very well in my personal relationships.

As a general rule, when the other person feels that you genuinely care about their needs and are truly committed to helping them to meet them, they are very likely to return the favor. At that point the hostility fades and the seeking of zero sum solutions on both sides gives way to both sides working together to brainstorm a positive sum solution that fully meets everyone's needs. This is really quite a beautiful process and I wish more people used it because I truly believe it could make the world a far better place for all of us.

I don’t think that Larry and Sergey yet fully grasp the consequences of allowing an echo chamber to form within google. One of the consequences of living in an echo chamber is that we rob ourselves of the feedback that we need to make good decisions. For example, many of us on the left who only listen to those who think like us are blissfully unaware of the severity of the storm that is building on the right and the consequences for the business.

Google’s whole future business model seems to be based on getting deeper into our lives, into our homes, into our vehicles and gathering ever more data about us so they can more effectively help others to market to us. Many of us have been completely okay with that in past because we trust Google. They’ve worked hard to earn that trust. But with the public shaming and firing of James Damore, the blacklisting of “non believers”, the demonetizing and deleting of YouTube videos that violate the “Code of Conduct”, etc. the bonds of trust have been shattered. And once trust has been shattered, it is nearly impossible to re-build.

I’m very sad to see this happening to a great company like google. I first encountered the new culture at Google I/O extended event I attended a few months ago. It disturbed me very deeply but I couldn’t figure out exactly why since I didn’t actually disagree with anything that the diversity proponents wanted to achieve. I’ve had some time to process it though, and here’s the deeper issue that I find so disturbing about what seems to be happening at google ...

How we habitually respond to “uncomfortable situations” in life matters a great deal. As individuals, it strongly influences our trajectory in life. In companies, the predominant tendency strongly influences the trajectory of the company.

One option is to habitually respond by “getting curious” and by “identifying that part of our predictive model of the world which is weak and seeking to understand the situation more deeply with the intent of strengthening our predictive model.” When we choose this option we tend to want to listen intently to those who believe differently than us, to seek to understand the deeper needs that are driving them, and to strive to pursue win-win (or “positive sum”) solutions to problems. The option tends to leads to a strengthening of “moonshot thinking” because our confidence in our ability to solve problems grows in direct proportion to the strength of our predictive model of the world.

Another option is to habitually respond by “being offended”, ”to sink into victimhood, powerlessness, learned helplessness”, “dividing into us vs them”, “initiating conflict”, “appealing to authority to protect us from the threat of them”. When we choose this option, we tend to disconnect from those who believe differently than us, to be unaware of the deeper needs that are driving their behavior, and to sink into pursuing win-loss (or zero sum) solutions to our problems. This option tends to lead to a strengthening of a downward spiral of “victimhood thinking” which decreases our confidence in our ability to solve difficult problems by skillful means.

edited: What I find so tragic about this is ... we have 7.5 billion minds in this world growing ever more connected to each other and to vast sums of knowledge by the internet. From a first principles perspective these minds represent more than enough resources to solve the most challenging problems that affect us all. If we would only fight each other with win-loss intent LESS and instead direct our aggression towards solving the difficult important problems that affect us all, we could solve these difficult problems so much more quickly. Why would we choose waste time fighting each other, when we could, for example, be building a piece of the puzzle that helps researchers cure the leukemia that my friend’s young son was just diagnosed with? Why would we make that choice?

Presumably this was the hope of the google founders who established the mission of “organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible.”?

I propose that >the tendency to “get offended” and “seek win-loss” solutions to problems should be targeted for extermination. We are better than this. > the tendency to “get curious” and find “win-win” solutions should to take its place.

I too was very reluctant to let go of uber for the same reasons. It's difficult to let go of what is clearly an outstanding product. I also have mixed feelings about Kalanick. I love how bold and aggressive he has been in going to war with ossified privilege and wish that more entrepreneurs had his balls. But when I read Susan’s blog, I thought to myself “this cannot go unpunished.” The toxic culture has to be corrected, not just at uber but everywhere it exists. Creating a world in which our daughters will not have to experience what Susan experienced is far more important than the convenience of a great app. Unfortunately, people do not genuinely change their deeply ingrained habits unless and until they reach a pain threshold which compels them to change their core values. Uber needs to feel that pain right now for the greater good of everyone including uber. So I deleted uber and switched to using Lyft and, so far, the experience has been surprisingly good. It seems that the engineers at Lyft have done a really great job as well. I have found that, as a general rule, making the decision to do what is right even when it is uncomfortable is always the decision that leads to greater happiness.

There seems to be a lot of sharing amongst artificial intelligence researchers nowadays and it seems to be accelerating innovation.

Sharing of medical research could potential accelerate innovation that could save a lot of lives (including those of the researchers themselves and their loved ones).

It's curious that these industries are so different in this respect.

What would have to happen in order to increase the amount of sharing of medical research?

As long as important problems remained unsolved and human desires remain unfulfilled there will be opportunities to contribute.

I’m very happy to see this. The moment that we stop shouting at each other and start to actually “listen” to each other is the moment when it becomes possible to find win-win solutions.

I would humbly suggest, however, that if you genuinely want to understand the mind of a Trump voter, you might try viewing the world from the perspective of people whose values are very different than yours.

Often when we offer value to others, we are completely oblivious to the fact their values are different than ours. We may, for example, with the best of intentions, offer a big juicy steak to a militant vegan.

We may be completely oblivious to the fact that the gesture will not produce the desired feeling of gratitude.

Similarly, try to understand why offering “universal basic income” to a Trump voter is many orders of magnitude worse than offering a steak to a vegan.

Why is this? Because accepting a hand-out is an affront to their honor. Many would rather die than accept handouts from the state. Because they value PRIDE far more than they value CONNECTION.

Observe that the most popular insult among the alt-right is “cuck”. Why is that? This betrays their deepest fear of the blue collar Trump voter: The fear that their wives will seek other men because they are no longer able to provide for their families because no woman wants to be with a man who cannot provide for her.

If you truly get that and empathize with the terror that they feel, everything becomes much more clear.

Agreed. The tendency to cling to views and debate rather than pursue truth is extremely unfortunate. Sam Harris gave a talk on this subject that I found quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL3kUHjp2Y

The 2 types of meditation that I practice I are mindfulness and concentration. Mindfulness practice has enabled me to become aware of the arising of unskillful compulsions, the habitual patterns of thought which give rise to them and to halt their progress. Concentration practice, on the other hand, builds the muscle of attention so that it becomes easier to stay focused and fully absorbed on whatever target you select. I have found that the combination of the 2 has enabled me rewire less skillful habitual patterns of thought and to replace them with more skillful patterns.

Physics and chemistry are usually taught from an historical perspective and I found this to be very helpful for it fires the imagination. We humans seem to love learning by stories. The hero strives to solve an important problem, fails a few times and eventually suceeds. Learning in ths fashion seems to enabler the learner to better integrate new knowledge into mental representations that are more likely to be recalled at the appropriate time when solving our own problems. Math is unfortunately not taught in this fashion. IMHO this is why so many kids have the same complaint: "when am i ever going to use this?"