Hanania retweet relapse—29 April: I'm not proud of the relapse of impotent hatred. It's good to take actions to call out dishonesty, but I should be calm and methodical and confident about it. Emotion is OK insofar as it motivates me to take action, but the action should be methodological
+-----
Section Title: Groundhog Day (reference Jessica's Tweet)
+October 7
+
+https://x.com/jessi_cata/status/1843535973478707677
+> But also... isn't this pattern of engagement, where EY posts some clever argument for going along with trans norms, you object, others back you up, and engagement dies down, and it happens again, kind of predictable by now? Is there a way out of the Groundhog Day loop?
+
+https://x.com/zackmdavis/status/1843537130230034762
+> Every iteration of the loop is a little bit different and I think I'm making slow incremental progress?
+
+https://x.com/zackmdavis/status/1843538797692367177
+> It wouldn't be worth bothering if only the object-level was at stake, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the Sequences-era version of Yudkowsky not only didn't play this game, but also didn't shamelessly misrepresent the content of ML papers.
+
+I wrote that at 11:27 p.m. on Oct. 7, linking to a criticism I had made of him on Oct 4 (https://x.com/zackmdavis/status/1842355473611358705) about a graph about transformers
+
+At 6:43 a.m. on Oct. 8, Yudkowsky replied "Noted. I'll avoid using that graph again until I've had time to track down original papers at least."; and Robert M. said I was too pessimistic about EY (https://x.com/rmushkatblat/status/1843694397692752357); I think the timing is not a coincidence; Yudkowsky offers the minimal concession when not doing it would make him look bad
+
+I told Robert (https://x.com/zackmdavis/status/1844142355370344875)—
+> Pessimism is relative to expectations? It's only human to make errors like "citing evidence E to persuade people of X without checking whether E supports X". The Sequences gave a vision of a discipline for not doing that in the 1st place, without waiting for a critic to check E.
+
+
+> Zack raises a question of what to do, but doesn't answer the question. So he's basically deferring to Eliezer's leadership on it. Eliezer can break the loop by taking a different decision, and Zack can break the loop by backing down or going more decisive.
+> Realistically it's not in Zack's interest to go more decisive since it will burn a lot of bridges and probably he will also make a bunch of mistakes due to aimlessness. Zack has made the case for a different decision, but... it feels overdetermined that Eliezer would not accept.
+
+I said (https://x.com/zackmdavis/status/1843540357168116215)—
+> There's a lot someone might dislike about my Dagny Taggart (continue trading with corrupt actors)/Phil Connors (continue Groundhog Day arguments) strategy, but I don't think "too indecisive" is exactly the right way to describe it
+
+I think I'm ready to be more decisive now
+
+-----
+
+
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/groups
RadGeek covering Scott and Kelsey—total "rationalist" victory
Milder: "By the way, since we happen to be in the same room, I have some more denunciations of you for intellectual dishonesty that I have not published yet. Do you want to try talking about it again, or should I just continue publicly denoucing you?"
January 2025 gendertropes in dath ilan: https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1884735897096384919
+
+------
+
+Jessica on MIRI secrecy: https://x.com/jessi_cata/status/1843544636159295897
+
+Scott's "You're wrong" like the Noah Smith Tweet about hereditarianism being disproved because you could close the gaps with a hundred years of eugenics
+
+------
+
+
+
+
+Is there anything you can recommend from the psych literature or elsewhere about how to control emotions?
+
+When I apologized on Sunday, you said it wasn't a problem
+
+
+
+-----------
+
+Would you happen to be able to recommend anything in the psych literature or elsewhere about training emotional control? I'm still really disappointed with my behavior on Friday. Screaming at you didn't actually help any of my goals!!
+
+You said it wasn't a problem after I apologized on Sunday (and the fact that my subconscious could predict that you already have my emotional character "priced in" is probably why it thought it could get away with it), but it's still unbecoming.
+
+I feel like there ought to be some targeted "remember that you can scream into a pillow later; calmly compute the most effective thing to say when other people are watching" exercise that I haven't done.
+
+----
+
+Have you ever noticed this phenomenon where people will concede every point of substance, but then try to spin it like their team was right all along?
+
+There was [a really egregious example from Noah Smith last week](https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1928965488052203944): he retweeted something about how selective breeding could eliminate racial gaps in "as little as 135 years", and commented, "The 'race and IQ' bros will think this is a big win for them, but in fact it's one reason why they're wrong."
+
+But of course hereditarians are going to agree that selective breeding works!
+
+It's as if as long as you affiliate with the right team, none of the actual details matter.
+
+
+
+
+----
+
+A benefit I did get from our interaction on Friday is that I now have a more detailed error theory of you.
+
+Previously, I had been attributing your failure to understand the philosophy of categorization to your being [math](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/30/the-lottery-of-fascinations/)-[retarded](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/).
+
+(A few years ago, I used to say that Scott Alexander is like GPT-3: the reason everyone is impressed is not because it's particularly smart, but because it writes so fast.)
+
+But that diagnosis is way too vague; now I feel like I have a better grasp of how your intellectual disability connects to your sincere self-reports.
+
+[Five and a half years ago, you told me](), No one is being decieved; their thoughts are just following a longer path.
+
+
+I think the reason _you_ think you hadn't just conceded everything of substance is because, as a math retard, you don't actually know any epistemology.
+
+Because I'm not retarded, I know about the minimum description length principle, which prefers
+
+[evidence that EY is playing political games, including "Changing Emotions"]
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff