At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense?
-I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns in English are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous for a reason.
+I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous on purpose.
When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie."
Then I would have at least expected Eliezer Yudkowsky to take actions _in favor of_ rather than _against_ his faithful students having these basic capabilities for reflection, self-observation, and ... speech? I would have expected Eliezer Yudkowsky to not _actively exert optimization pressure in the direction of transforming me into a Jane Austen character_.
-### This Isn't About Subjective Intent
+### Criticism of Public Statements Is About the Public Statements, Not Subjective Intent
This is the part where Yudkowsky or his flunkies accuse me of being uncharitable, of [failing at perspective-taking](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435617576495714304) and [embracing conspiracy theories](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1708587781424046242). Obviously, Yudkowsky doesn't _think of himself_ as trying to transform his faithful students into Jane Austen characters. Perhaps, then, I have failed to understand his position? [As Yudkowsky put it](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435618825198731270):
pt. 4 edit tier—
✓ "A Fire" § title
-✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive"
+- revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive"
+_ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges"
_ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous?
_ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk.
_ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition"
_ look for a place to link https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars
_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
_ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard
-_ make sure I'm summarizing "Challenges" appropriately
+_ parenthetical defending literal fraud
time-sensitive globals TODOs—
✓ consult Said
- remaining pt. 4 edit tier
- draft #drama strategy opening remarks
_ consult Anna
-_ draft Twitter thread
_ #drama strategy session
+_ draft Twitter thread
_ bully Jeff Ladish
_ PUBLISH pt. 4!!
> "Racism" is so commonly used weirdly that I think there are few circumstances left where I'd try to use the word to communicate. Instead I'd say, "X seems to be judging people negatively in a hard-to-shake-off way based on their skin color."
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1755624226550387013
+
+> "Study science, not just me!" is probably the most important piece of advice Ayn Rand should've given her followers and didn't. There's no one human being who ever lived, whose shoulders were broad enough to bear all the weight of a true science with many contributors.
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/96TBXaHwLbFyeAxrg/guardians-of-ayn-rand
02/11/2024,118630,2\r
02/12/2024,118637,7\r
02/13/2024,118639,2\r
-02/14/2024,,
\ No newline at end of file
+02/14/2024,118643,4\r
+02/15/2024,,
\ No newline at end of file
-Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities.
+
+Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. 1/
----------
So, I'm about ready to publish my loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty (as pt. 4 of my memoir sequence). Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive)?
-I'm eager for advice because this is a high-stakes political move and needs to be a _flawless performance_. (When you strike at a king, you must kill him.) My ideal outcome is for Eliezer to actually learn something, but since that's probably not going to happen by the Law of Continued Failure, I'll settle for dealing some amount of reputational damage.
+I'm eager for advice because this is a high-stakes political move and needs to be a _flawless performance_. (When you strike at a king, you must kill him.) My ideal outcome is for Eliezer to actually learn something, but since that's probably not going to happen (by the Law of Continued Failure), I'll settle for dealing targeted reputational damage.
It's unpleasant for it to come to this, but at this point, I don't think I have any other options besides "lay down and die." I tried the good-faith object-level argument thing for years, and he made it very clear that he reserves the right to _ignore counterarguments on political grounds_ (because that's where his political incentives point), and that he thinks it's insane (his word choice) to get angry at people who are just following their political incentives. At that point, _my_ incentive is to cry "Fraud!" for the benefit of people who still erroneously trust him not to think that intellectual honesty is insane.
-[TODO: Oli gets it! Vaniver gets it!]
+(It's really striking how, despite sneering about the lost of art of perspective taking, he doesn't seem capable of entertaining the perspective under which the published text of the Sequences might have led someone to form higher expectations of his performance. Oli Habryka gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/juZ8ugdNqMrbX7x2J/challenges-to-yudkowsky-s-pronoun-reform-proposal/comment/he8dztSuBBuxNRMSY>) Vaniver gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/yFZH2sBsmmqgWm4Sp/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/comment/dSiBGRGziEffJqN2B>) Eliezer Yudkowsky either doesn't get it, or is pretending not to get it. I almost suspect it's the first one, which is far worse.)
+
+Given that this is very obviously a conflict and not a disagreement, it seems prudent for me to strategize about what his defense is going to be—if any. He _could_ just ignore it. But he does occasionally respond to critics, and I think my voice carries enough intra-cult weight that he'll plausibly want to defend against the reputational damage. (We've seen that he's _very_ skilled at high-verbal-IQ ass-covering.) Is there anything I can do to pre-empt the ass-covering maneuvers, separately from what's already in the post?
+
+I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 would have judged as non-evasive, as assessed by [third party judge]?" and buying some NO. (I think Ben Pace is credibly neutral and would agree to judge.) The idea being that the market makes him less likely to ass-cover, because it would look very bad for him if the judge rules that a 2009 _Overcoming Bias_ reader wouldn't buy it.
-Given that this is very obviously a conflict and not a disagreement, it seems prudent for me to strategize about what the adversary's defense is going to be—if any. He _could_ just ignore it. But he does occasionally respond to critics, and I think I'm wielding enough of a threat that he'll want to
+But I'm leaning against the Manifold gambit because I don't want it look like I'm expecting or demanding a reply. I've more than used up my lifetime supply of Eliezer-bandwidth. The point is for me to explain to _everyone else_ why he's a phony and I don't respect him anymore. If he actively _wants_ to contest my claim that he's a phony—or try to win back my respect—he's welcome to do so. But given that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity, I'm just as happy to prosecute him _in absentia_.
-I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an Overcoming Bias reader in 2009 would have judged as non-evasive, as judged by [third party judge]"? (I think Ben Pace would do it.)
+[TODO: reply to message in question]
+I do quote this November 2022 message in the post, which I claim doesn't violate consensus privacy norms, due to the conjunction of (a) it not being particularly different-in-character from things he's said in more public venues, and (b) there bring _100+ people_ in this server; I argue that he can't have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (of the kind that would prohibit sharing a personal email, even if the email didn't say anything particularly different-in-character from things the author said in a more public venue). But I'm listening if someone wants to argue that I'm misjudging the consensus privacy norms.
-------------
+----------------
Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff