site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34937 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

1

Kolmogorov

Off topic, but this exchange and the mention of the K-meme has prompted me to reread both Aaronson's piece, Alexander's one and refresh my memory with some Russian sources.

The takeaway is that both Scotts have delivered us mashals, half edifying parables loosely based on real events and characters, half projections and personal creeds. Aaronson views the world through the lens of his existential fear of powerful bullies; Alexander is ever the grand allegorist of the culture war (and I love this allegory to death). The autistically naive Kantorovich who has dodged the bullet with his ignored letter to Stalin, the noble but savvy political operator Kolmogorov, the atmosphere of terror and careful dancing around Stalin's paranoia, oppressors and blameless victims of tyrannical whims – that's all rather simplistic. It was a curious, if messy and petty, rabbit hole.

I'll leave the overdramatized Kantorovych topic aside because he had a good reason to escalate it to Stalin, namely his already immense reputation and having received a shallow answer from the Scientific Secretary of Gosplan; and as RAS says in the note On the 100th anniversary of the birth of academician and Nobel Prize laureate Leonid Vitalievitch Kantorovich, «...a year later his proposal was discussed by the high management of the Gosplan and rejected. [...] The only thing that saved him from repression was the fact that Kantorovich was not formally an economist, but a mathematician, and they have always been forgiven for being somewhat eccentric». Let's talk Kolmogorov.

Aaronson:

From what I’ve read—for example, in Gessen’s biography of Perelman—Kolmogorov seems to have been generally a model of integrity and decency.  ... And at a time when Soviet mathematics was convulsed by antisemitism—with students of Jewish descent excluded from the top math programs for made-up reasons, sent instead to remote trade schools—Kolmogorov quietly protected Jewish researchers.

Kolmogorov was a leading and admired Soviet scientist all through the era of Stalin’s purges, the Gulag, the KGB, the murders and disappearances and forced confessions, the show trials, the rewritings of history, the allies suddenly denounced as traitors, the tragicomedy of Lysenkoism.  [...]  So then why did he utter nary a word in public against what was happening?

As far as I can tell, the answer is simply: because Kolmogorov knew better than to pick fights he couldn’t win.  He judged that he could best serve the cause of truth by building up an enclosed little bubble of truth, and protecting that bubble from interference by the Soviet system, and even making the bubble useful to the system wherever he could—rather than futilely struggling to reform the system, and simply making martyrs of himself and all his students for his trouble.

There was also a dark side to political quietism.  In 1936, Kolmogorov joined other mathematicians in testifying against his former mentor in the so-called Luzin affair.  By many accounts, he did this because the police blackmailed him, by threatening to reveal his homosexual relationship with Pavel Aleksandrov.

Sergei Novikov offers a more jaded view. First of the Luzin's 1946 affair in his amazing memoirs:

... My father [Pyotr Novikov] went to the Steklov Institute (which moved from Leningrad in 1934), apparently on the recommendation of Luzin. He made his first brilliant works on the then-superfashionable Descriptive Set Theory (DST). Luzin, Kolmogorov, Kantorovich, von Neumann and some other stars were fond of it. Kolmogorov, reputedly the first mathematician in Moscow, was childishly jealous. Luzin and other envious people (like Vinogradov) did not let Kolmogorov even into the correspondent members, but he got elected academician by votes of physicists in 1939. With all that, Luzin teased Kolmogorov: «And Petya Novikov has stronger theorems on DTM than you have». Kolmogorov wanted to be the first «in all-all-all things». He came to detest my father, who idolized him, by the way. Later, Kolmogorov treated me very well, perhaps realizing his unfairness. And Luzin, who liked Novikov's work so much, was not ashamed to steal from it: Novikov came to Luzin with a theorem. Luzin was so fond of it that he sent an article to the Comptes Rendus, signed by himself, behind the author's back (see comments n.1 on the harassment of Luzin). [P. Novikov defended his thesis in 1935] After my father's funeral, I asked L. Lusternik, his friend: «Why did you all pray to Luzin so much? My father made the best works, too, after freeing himself from his influence». He replied: «You wouldn't understand now. Luzin taught us to love mathematics.»

[...]

Now about Petrovsky. [...] A detailed description of the 1946 election process is contained in Pontryagin's letter to Gordon dated December 24, 1946. Kolmogorov had negotiated with Luzin that they were running P. S. Alexandrov as an Academician, and P. Novikov as a correspondent member. I had already heard at home that "Papa would soon be a member-corr". But he didn't, had to wait another seven years. With no warning, Luzin spoke at the screening committee of the Department of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, breaking all the agreements: «The foremost candidate important for applied works – Petrovsky. Aleksandrov can't measure up» ... Kolmogorov approached Luzin and said: «You have acted dishonorably» (or something like that). Luzin replied, as the secret rumor goes, «I can't take insults from a woman.»

Let's pause the story for a brief comment. This phrase was told to me much later by a friend, in the confidential words of an older mathematician. But he was unhappy with the direct reference, so the matter is still under some secrecy, as if there is something unacceptable here (why?). С. Kutateladze informed me of a slightly different version from Kantorovich, but it is homosexual as well.

This opened my eyes. The story told earlier looked unnatural without it. I knew Kolmogorov; he was not crazy, on the contrary, he was a very restrained man. It took a strong insult, a knockdown, for him to become so lost. It was probably said in a lowered voice, so the details are blurred, I suppose. My parents withheld it from me. I couldn't ask them again any more; they had passed away.

[Pontryagin's letter] is silent on homosexuality. It was a strict taboo back then. Pontryagin, however, did not really take part in the election, sitting on the sidelines.

Beria's role was hidden behind the actions of academics – that was rules of the game.

Continuing the story, Kolmogorov lost it and acted indeed like a woman: he shrieked and slapped Luzin in the face. This got reported to Stalin. Stalin, it is said, was not at all angry, he liked such imbroglios between intellectuals. They gave him a moral high ground. Anyway, S. Vavilov, president of the academy, said to Kolmogorov: «You're the first academician since Lomonosov to start a scuffle.» Kolmogorov paid a fine.

Do not think, however, that Luzin simply betrayed my father. Nor does it matter that Petrovsky is better as a mathematician than P. Alexandrov [...] Luzin, I think, could have been summoned and kindly asked by Beria, like Maltsev was, or otherwise was requested to support the right candidate. He suffered severe persecution in 1936 (see Comments n1), and such people are particularly pliable (and who among us could refuse Beria?). [...]

Incidentally, in L. Graham and J.M. Kantor's book the slap episode on page 186 is portrayed incorrectly, but in excessive detail. It is ridiculous to think that Kolmogorov would have been telling Luzin – the enemy – about his works. And what was his work on topology of this time? Complete nonsense. Apparently, the authors believed someone who didn't even know it was related to the election. The episode on the other hand is portrayed with detail and great exaggeration. I thought at first it was narrated by Arnold, whom Kantor knew well. His imagination often created a lush story from a little piece he didn't really know (see examples in my article 7). It turned out, however, that Arnold refused to comment on all this, and the fake info came from Yushkevich. It is thus based on hearsay from sources far removed from any real witnesses. This was noted by Kantor himself. As can be seen, this episode has become the subject of popular imagination.

/images/16754834026027539.webp

2

The book in question:

... In the case of Luzin, however, the criticism of Alexandrov and Kolmogorov was more personal. Luzin resented the fact that the two occupied themselves with new topics—topology for Alexandrov, probability theory for Kolmogorov—that he did not work in; furthermore, the first topic had potentially more general developments than descriptive set theory, of which Luzin was the unique master. Luzin once made a very offensive remark about Kolmogorov and Alexandrov. In 1946, on the floor of the Academy of Sciences, Kolmogorov said something about his recent work on topology to Luzin, and the latter replied, “Eto ne topologiia, eto topolozhstvo” (“This is not topology, this is topolozhstvo”). Kolmogorov reddened and struck Luzin in the face. The word “topolozhstvo” is an invented term with a very clear meaning. In Russian the word skotolozhstvo means “bestiality,” while muzhelozhstvo means “sodomy.” Therefore, “topolozhstvo” was a word contrived by Luzin that might be translated as “to- pological pederasty.” It was an extremely insulting thing for Luzin to say to Kolmogorov, and the latter’s anger is understandable.

Yeah, very cute. Exemplary Kremlinology.

Back to Novikov. The first Luzin affair, one of 1936:

In 1936 an editorial about Luzin appeared in the newspaper Pravda, which described his actions as «Peculiar Sabotage». His behaviour was filthy for a professor, it is true. All the facts were true. He quarrelled with young P. Alexandrov after his good works on set theory. He was harassing Suslin, which is a nasty story. He stole from P. Novikov, my father. He wouldn't let Kolmogorov into the Academy. But such a politically scary term! The Steklovka debriefing was obligatory. The Georgian elastic rigidity man Kupradze, the secretary of the Steklovka party bureau, refused – and, losing his career, went back to Georgia. (He only revived it by volunteering at the front). I do not know who prepared and led this meeting. A perfunctory speech of condemnation was mandatory. Lavrentiev did not come the first time; he got brought in. My father was the only one who said no, I will not speak. That wasn't easy at the time. You shouldn't think that everyone who spoke was really guilty of an act of harassment. No, they were puppets. Lavrentiev, Lusternik, Schnirelman definitely weren't enemies of Luzin. His enemies then were Aleksandrov and Kolmogorov – among the mathematicians. But they weren't Party members. The philosopher Kolman loathed Luzin, he would have gladly done so. But he was not part of that circle, he did not know the facts. Most importantly, he had to be an insider to learn these facts. Back then, the investigation [of this puzzle] was carried out by my father (I think together with Lusternik and Lavrentiev, who knew the party circles). They've established that there was a letter from P.Alexandrov to an influential man called Hvorostin, indignantly outlining Luzin's atrocities. Hvorostin was in Saratov and had great connections in the Central Committee. He hated Luzin, it was known. Hvorostin, they decided, was the one who passed the materials to the CC and initiated the article. Pavel Sergeyevich was a great master of pool! This reached Stalin (through Kapitsa, I think). He was surprised: it was a case he had not yet planned for the academic establishment. Stalin is said to have responded: «Newspaper Pravda, comrades, is not wrong. But it says that his sabotage is peculiar. So the punishment must also be peculiar. Limit yourselves to debriefing».

Aaronson's link states, meanwhile:

On 21 November 1930, the declaration of the "initiative group" of the Moscow Mathematical Society which consisted of Luzin's former students Lazar Lyusternik and Lev Schnirelmann along with Alexander Gelfondand Lev Pontryagin claimed that “there appeared active counter-revolutionaries among mathematicians”.[6]Some of these mathematicians were pointed out, including the advisor of Luzin, Dmitri Egorov. In September 1930, Egorov was arrested on the basis of his religious beliefs [Orthodox Christian]. He then left the position of director of the Moscow Mathematical Society and was replaced by Ernst Kolman. As a result, Luzin left the Moscow Mathematical Society and Moscow State University. Egorov died on 10 September 1931, after a hunger strike initiated in prison. In 1931, Kolman brought the first complaint against Luzin.

In 1936 the Great Purge began. Millions of people were arrested or executed, including leading members of the intelligentsia. In July–August of that year, Luzin was criticized in Pravda in a series of anonymous articles whose authorship later was attributed to Kolman.[7] It was alleged that Luzin published “would-be scientific papers”, “felt no shame in declaring the discoveries of his students to be his own achievements”, and stood close to the ideology of the “black hundreds”, orthodoxy, and monarchy “fascist-type modernized but slightly.”[8]

One of the complaints was that he published his major results in foreign journals. The article triggered a special hearing on Luzin's case by the Commission of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where the allegations were reviewed and formalized. At the hearing, Aleksandrov, Lyusternik, Khinchin, Kolmogorov and some other students of Luzin accused him of plagiarism from Pyotr Novikov and Mikhail Suslin and various forms of misconduct, which included denying promotions to Kolmogorov and Khinchin. According to some researchers, Aleksandrov and Kolmogorov had been involved in a homosexual relationship in the 1930s, a fact the police used to pressure them into testifying against their former teacher.

Then Wikipedia goes on to cite Graham&Kantor and Yushkevich for that claim. Graham had interviewed the militant and violent Stalinist Kolman, («He would play a sinister role in many events in Soviet history, and was a major accuser of Egorov, Florensky, and Luzin») a few times, «both in the Soviet Union and later in the United States». Kolman later «renounced communism», kept publishing his philosophical work, and died peacefully in Sweden, where he got asylum, at the age of 86.

Aaronson also cites Gessen' s book on Perelman, Frenkel, refers to Arnold, proudly namedrops Levin... And I can't help but think his perspective is a bit shte.. sheltered, compressed in a peculiar dimension, of which the bully-nerd one is just an elaboration. But that's the narrow perspective the whole of West is informed through; «Masha» Gessen is our final arbiter.

Ruzya Solodovnik, Gessen's maternal grandmother, was a Russian-born intellectual who worked as a censor for the Stalinist government until she was fired during an antisemitic purge. Gessen's maternal grandfather Samuil was a committed Bolshevik who died during World War II, leaving Ruzya to raise Yelena alone.

There's more to us than perspectives of deranged hereditary bluecheka whom Aaronson intuitively trusts –more bad stuff, but more good too. Purges of the late 30s-40s left a permanent blemish on my people's history, but who counts Egorovs snuffed out by those poor victims just a decade before, and pauses to marvel at the complexity of the conflict, in all matters petty and grand? And to cite S. Novikov again:

Forget the tears of those Communists who, as they used to say, got what they fought for. Forget their descendants too, for whom all was well until the evil Stalin began to exterminate their parents in the 1930s. Let's call this type of crime intra-communist, and we are not communists. We do not care about it at all.

@theincompetencetheorist, I've written and erased a condescending response to the effect that, while Soviets had managed to intimidate and shame people into mouthing the party line for a while as part of a generic power struggle, they have not and perhaps could not cultivate guilt for wrongthink.

This guilt comes naturally to Western peoples, and so your tyranny, shall it be established once by virtue of centralization and technological advances, will be sustainable indefinitely. It will be defended by the best and bravest among you who fear losing the respect of their loved ones, as opposed to chaotic opportunists and wretched small-minded apparatchiks with material concerns – who are known to be despised by talented, well-connected and fuckable dissidents.

@theincompetencetheorist, I've written and erased a condescending response to the effect that, while Soviets had managed to intimidate and shame people into mouthing the party line for a while as part of a generic power struggle, they have not and perhaps could not cultivate guilt for wrongthink.

Cultivating guilt for wrongthink can only take you so far. The simulacra of showing guilt is as good for some than having actual guilt.

This guilt comes naturally to Western peoples, and so your tyranny, shall it be established once by virtue of centralization and technological advances, will be sustainable indefinitely. It will be defended by the best and bravest among you who fear losing the respect of their loved ones, as opposed to chaotic opportunists and wretched small-minded apparatchiks with material concerns – who are known to be despised by talented, well-connected and fuckable dissidents.

The techonological tools of our oppression is already breaking by the seams of their complexity. The apparatchiks that are trying to control them are uninterested in why they are breaking, they are just yelling at people who claim to understand the tools to fix them so they work like it is supposed to. And the moment the machine grinds to a halt because the ones who really know how it works gets ousted or executed the grip of tyranny will slip.

I'm limited to my time. I tried to communicate this with the second paragraph of my first post in this thread. But now I see that it wasn't as well written as I hoped for. I was trying to communicate the flawed ideas the roots our current attempt at tyranny. At the fringes they show the flaw in their ideology trying to treat the simulacra interchangeable with reality. But as we have seen with with the recent events after these people lost the total grip of twitter their grip on power was tenuous at best, and we will see the full consequences in a few years.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats