I’m also confused as to what the takeaway was supposed to be here. Like, because a whole bunch of different famous psych studies fail to replicate maybe this one is less invalid?
Also, were they expecting Ed Zitron of all people to not write a polemical?
Yeah. The fixation on growth mindset may be relatively unique to Microsoft, but the role it fills in the organization is really common; it creates a fuzzy standard to justify management’s decisions while it obscures management’s responsibility for those decisions. It’s like managers realized that the Jack Welch rank-and-yank approach is absolutely terrible for morale, talent retention, and the general ability of the company to function over the mid- to long-term, but doing big layoffs is still a great way to make the numbers look better to meet shareholder growth expectations. So instead of having clear expectations that can be met or even relative rankings that can be measured there’s been a move towards subjective evaluations. That is probably the best way to gauge performance in a lot of areas, but that requires both that the manager doing the assessment know something about the work being done (your average MBA won’t) and that the organization not have incentives to abuse the power this gives them (which shareholder capitalism definitely does).
I don’t know. I feel like the prior for putting tech billionaires on massive single-masted yachts with high waterlines and low air vents is still pretty positive. This is only one bad voyage; consider how many trips provide evidence that this is a good plan.
Much like Titan, which had several successful voyages to the Titanic that other billionaires should seek to emulate by using the exact same sorta-procen design and construction that Titan did.
On one hand, if inflating the value of the startup you’re offloading onto a tech giant is a crime we should put half of Silicon Valley in prison. On the other hand, maybe we should put half of the Valley in prison.
I’m pretty sure they’re referencing an old ssc post on “kolmogorov complicity” - referencing the Soviet scientist who either spoke out against the purges and got gulag’d or who realized that they were bad but didn’t say anything to avoid getting gulag’d and tried to protect his peers from the same fate. I forget if he was the example to follow or the counterexample, and I can’t be arsed to look it up.
Now imagine if instead of a Soviet citizen trying to steer your people away from stalinism you were a fascist living in a broadly progressive culture looking to steer the world away from liberalism and towards Yarvin and friends. I try not to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole, but I’m not sure how Scott’s output meaningfully differs from what such a person would write. Honestly if he hasn’t written the kolmogorov complicity post outlining the whole concept I don’t know if I’d be more or less inclined to think he’s doing it actively.
Kinda stretching the definition of “plausible”. It’s less about external deniability and more about internal rejection. They want to avoid thinking of themselves as fascist-adjacent right-wing loons without giving up on being one
“Black people are late sometimes” but in a racist way instead of a “Repent, Harlequin” kind of way.
Past a certain point it’s a little bit like learning to type on a typewriter. On one hand it forces you to think about certain types of mistakes and forces you to avoid making errors. On the other hand it gives you a whole bunch of trained habits that are either useless or actively harmful once you’re working with better tools.
I feel like Ed is underselling the degree to which this is just how businesses work now. The emphasis on growth mindset is particularly gross because of how it sells the CEOs book, but it’s not unique in trying to find a feel-good vibes-based way to evaluate performance rather than relying on strict metrics that give management less power over their direct reports.
Of course he’s also written at length about the overall problem that this feeds into (organizations run by people with no idea how to make the business do what it does but who can make the number go up for shareholders) but the most unique part of this is the AI integration, which is legitimately horrifying and I feel like the debunk of growth mindset takes some of the sting away.
Truly, we are blessed to have a candidate willing to represent the freedom to sell anything on a darknet market and hire a hitman to take out your previous partners or detractors or whatever.
Nah, it’s the Nazis who are dumbasses, not that that makes them less dangerous. They certainly think they’re smart and the want to present themselves as curious, but in reality they reduce knowledge to another political tool. There is no true spirit of inquiry or asking questions, only trying to marshal arguments in favor of their pre-established answer. Intellectual discourse becomes both a source of power to give their preexisting ideology a veneer of legitimacy and also an arena of conflict where they can prove that they’re the biggest bestest boys.
These people possess neither a desire nor a willingness to engage with the world as it actually is. Instead they want the power to impose their vision of what the world should look like (a strict hierarchy with them at the ostensible top) onto reality, and when it inevitably fails because that’s not how any of this works they end up uselessly doubling down and retreating into conspiracies. Next time they’ll have more power and it’ll work, even though it’s the basic underlying shape of Creation that they’re ultimately at war with.
Man, I didn’t even know how to react to this nonsense. The obvious sneer is to point out that if the alternative is to interact with people like ER here we really shouldn’t be surprised to see a declining birth rate. But I think the more important takeaway that this hints at is that these people are dumb and fundamentally incurious.
Like, there’s plenty of surveys and research into why people are having fewer kids than they used to, and it’s not because toddlers are little hellions more so than in the past. And “generational insolvency” is a pretty big fucking part of the explanation actually, as is empowering families to choose whether or not to have children rather than leaving it entirely up to the vicissitudes of biological processes and horniness. The latter part cuts both ways, in that people who want families are (theoretically; see above re: financial factors) able to take advantage of fertility treatments or IVF or whatever and have kids where they historically would have been unable to do so.
But no, rather than actually engage with any of that or otherwise treat the world like other people have agency they have identified what they believe to be the problem and have decided that the brute application of state power is the solution, so long as that power is being applied to other people. For all that we acknowledge the horrors of fascism, I think the stupidity of these people is also worth acknowledging, if for no other reason than to reinforce why this shit shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Shit, someone make me a time machine so I can go make a joke back in 2016 when it would have been relevant.
Wait we created a market and people are manipulating it in order to profit because it turns out market manipulation pays the same or more than being a banker investor “superpredictor” but is much easier?
Is my product concept fundamentally bad?
No, it’s the customers who are wrong.
There’s a certain spirit of online debate about trivial or nonsensical things like this that can best be understood as happening purely for the sport of it.
Had a first-hand AI encounter today at the grocery store. The self-checkout now has a script that monitors an overhead video feed to make sure you’re not getting tricky about what scanned and what got put into the bagging area, and if it thinks you’re shady it will stop you from proceeding and summon an employee with no notification that something is wrong.
The new self-checkout process is as follows:
Even as antisocial and impatient as I am I’ve found self-checkout to be a UX disaster, but somehow it keeps getting worse.
Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right.
I wonder what major world events were happening in the 1930s-1940s that would line up with this…
As it turned out, Meyer did take the side of the Republican party on some issues. He was opposed to FDR’s New Deal, and this was reflected in the Post’s editorial stance as well as its news coverage, especially regarding the National Recovery Administration (NRA). He even wrote an editorializing “news” story under a fake name
THERE IT IS!
But back to Jeff.
You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests.
Yep. We’re protected from intimidation and extortion so long as we pay our dues to the consiglieri when he comes around and don’t get too chummy with the cops.
I mean, he is their VP of Autoplag, so I imagine he’s got even more reason to believe than the average MBA. That doesn’t undermine your point, but I think the fact that adobe has appointed a VP of Autoplag should be part of the story to begin with, rather than being assumed. Did they ever have a VP of blockchain? Or a VP of copyright fraud?
Self-reply because a few hours later I could be arsed after all, and what I found was confusing.
To start with, this wasn’t a scooter original; it was a response to a post by a different Scott A, and according to a very brief examination (I read both the Wikipedia article and the talk page) it looks like it’s based on some questionable history. The story is that Andrey Kolmogorov kept quiet and used his influence to shelter Jewish academics and others from persecution under the purges. However, the most noteworthy example of his actions during the purges were his active testimony in the prosecution of his doctoral advisor, Nikolas Luzin. There’s some ambiguity about why he participated but the two theories appear to be that the cops forced him to do it by blackmailing him about a (historically disputed/unconfirmed) gay relationship he was in or that the whole thing was driven by personal animosity between Luzin and his students. Notably after being convicted it seems like Luzin wasn’t enough of a threat to Stalin to actually be properly disappeared or even fully removed from academia.
I don’t know enough about the relevant history to make a reasonable determination as to who’s right, but it’s telling that neither story meaningfully supports the idea that the Scotts seem to be pitching of keeping your head down and muddling through to protect you and yours under authoritarianism. If that “Kolmogorov Option” exists it’s only because you’re in a decently liberal society. Otherwise the authoritarian power of the state will be used against you either for their own purpose or as a tool by whoever can catch their ear and doesn’t like you, and all your attempts to avoid being the nail that sticks out will have been pointless.