From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:36:27 +0000 (-0700) Subject: check in X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c1c8d40b04a72ba2b0b89841379eeebf3f32a63f;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git check in --- diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md index 6929d1d..f0f313d 100644 --- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md +++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ But the post is very wrong in very obvious ways. To be clear, it's true _that_ c > I ought to accept an unexpected man or two deep inside the conceptual boundaries of what would normally be considered female if it'll save someone's life. There's no rule of rationality saying that I shouldn't, and there are plenty of rules of human decency saying that I should. -This is wrong because categories exist in our model of the world _in order to_ capture empirical regularities in the world itself: the map is supposed to _reflect_ the territory, and there _are_ "rules of rationality" governing what kinds of word and category usages correspond to correct probabilistic inferences. [Yudkowsky wrote a whole Sequence about this](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/SGB7Y5WERh4skwtnb) back in 'aught-eight. Alexander cites [a post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yA4gF5KrboK2m2Xu7/how-an-algorithm-feels-from-inside) from that Sequence in support of the (true) point about how categories are "in the map" ... but if you actually read the Sequence, another point that Yudkowsky pounds home _over and over and over again_, is that word and category definitions are nevertheless _not_ arbitrary: you can't define a word any way you want, because there are [at least 37 ways that words can be wrong](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong)—principles that make some definitions _perform better_ than others as "cognitive technology." +This is wrong because categories exist in our model of the world _in order to_ capture empirical regularities in the world itself: the map is supposed to _reflect_ the territory, and there _are_ "rules of rationality" governing what kinds of word and category usages correspond to correct probabilistic inferences. Yudkowsky had written a whole Sequence about this, ["A Human's Guide to Words"](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/SGB7Y5WERh4skwtnb), back in 'aught-eight as one of the original Sequences. Alexander cites [a post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yA4gF5KrboK2m2Xu7/how-an-algorithm-feels-from-inside) from that Sequence in support of the (true) point about how categories are "in the map" ... but if you actually read the Sequence, another point that Yudkowsky pounds home _over and over and over again_, is that word and category definitions are nevertheless _not_ arbitrary: you can't define a word any way you want, because there are [at least 37 ways that words can be wrong](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong)—principles that make some definitions _perform better_ than others as "cognitive technology." In the case of Alexander's bogus argument about gender categories, the relevant principle ([#30](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/d5NyJ2Lf6N22AD9PB/where-to-draw-the-boundary) on [the list of 37](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong)) is that if you group things together in your map that aren't actually similar in the territory, you're going to make bad inferences. @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ I'm proud of those posts: I think Alexander's and Piper's arguments were incredi Of course, a pretty good job of explaining by one niche blogger wasn't going to put much of a dent in the culture, which is the sum of everyone's blogposts; despite the mild boost from the _Slate Star Codex_ links post, my megaphone just wasn't very big. At this point, I was _disappointed_ with the limited impact of my work, but not to the point of bearing much hostility to "the community". People had made their arguments, and I had made mine; I didn't think I was _entitled_ to anything more than that. -... and, really, that _should_ have been the end of the story. Not much of a story at all. If I hadn't been further provoked, I would have still kept up this blog, and I still would have ended up arguing about gender with people occasionally, but this personal obsession of mine wouldn't have been the occasion of a full-on robot-cult religious civil war involving other people who you'd expect to have much more important things to do with their time. +... and, really, that _should_ have been the end of the story. Not much of a story at all. If I hadn't been further provoked, I would have still kept up this blog, and I still would have ended up arguing about gender with people occasionally, but this personal obsession of mine wouldn't have been the occasion of a robot-cult religious civil war involving other people who you'd expect to have much more important things to do with their time. The _causis belli_ for the religious civil war happened on 28 November 2018. I was at my new dayjob's company offsite event in Austin, Texas. Coincidentally, I had already spent much of the previous two days (since just before the plane to Austin took off) arguing trans issues with other "rationalists" on Discord. @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ Forcing a speaker to say "trans woman" instead of "man" in that sentence dependi To this one might reply that I'm giving too much credit to the "anti-trans" faction for how stupid they're not being: that _my_ careful dissection of the hidden probabilistic inferences implied by words [(including pronoun choices)](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) is all well and good, but that calling pronouns "lies" is not something you do when you know how to use words. -But I'm _not_ giving them credit for _for understanding the lessons of ["A Human's Guide to Words"](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/SGB7Y5WERh4skwtnb)_; I just think there's a useful sense of "know how to use words" that embodies a lower standard of philosophical rigor. If a person-in-the-street says of my cosplay photos, "That's a man! I _have eyes_ and I can _see_ that that's a man! Men aren't women!"—well, I _probably_ wouldn't want to invite such a person-in-the-street to a _Less Wrong_ meetup. But I do think the person-in-the-street is _performing useful cognitive work_. Because _I_ have the hidden-Bayesian-structure-of-language-and-cognition-sight (thanks to Yudkowsky's writings back in the 'aughts), _I_ know how to sketch out the reduction of "Men aren't women" to something more like "This [cognitive algorithm](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HcCpvYLoSFP4iAqSz/rationality-appreciating-cognitive-algorithms) detects secondary sex characteristics and uses it as a classifier for a binary female/male 'sex' category, which it uses to make predictions about not-yet-observed features ..." +But I'm _not_ giving them credit for _for understanding the lessons of "A Human's Guide to Words"_; I just think there's a useful sense of "know how to use words" that embodies a lower standard of philosophical rigor. If a person-in-the-street says of my cosplay photos, "That's a man! I _have eyes_ and I can _see_ that that's a man! Men aren't women!"—well, I _probably_ wouldn't want to invite such a person-in-the-street to a _Less Wrong_ meetup. But I do think the person-in-the-street is _performing useful cognitive work_. Because _I_ have the hidden-Bayesian-structure-of-language-and-cognition-sight (thanks to Yudkowsky's writings back in the 'aughts), _I_ know how to sketch out the reduction of "Men aren't women" to something more like "This [cognitive algorithm](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HcCpvYLoSFP4iAqSz/rationality-appreciating-cognitive-algorithms) detects secondary sex characteristics and uses it as a classifier for a binary female/male 'sex' category, which it uses to make predictions about not-yet-observed features ..." But having _done_ the reduction-to-cognitive-algorithms, it still looks like the person-in-the-street _has a point_ that I shouldn't be allowed to ignore just because I have 30 more IQ points and better philosophy-of-language skills? As Yudkowsky had [once written](https://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues), "Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself." @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ Jessica explained what she saw as the problem with this. What Ben was proposing Socially, creating clarity about behavioral patterns _is_ construed as an attack and _can_ make things worse for someone: for example, if your livelihood is based on telling a story about you and your flunkies being the only sane truthseeking people in the world, then me demonstrating that you don't care about the truth when it's politically inconvenient for you is a threat to your marketing story, and therefore a threat to your livelihood. As a result, it's easier to create clarity down power gradients than up power gradients: it was easy for me to blow the whistle on trans people's narcissistic delusions, but hard to blow the whistle on Yudkowsky's narcissistic delusions.[^trans-power-gradient] -[^trans-power-gradient]: Probably a lot of _other_ people who lived in Berkeley would find it harder to criticize trans people than to criticize some privileged white guy named Yudkowski or whatever. But those weren't the relevant power gradients in _my_ social world. +[^trans-power-gradient]: Probably a lot of _other_ people who lived in Berkeley would find it harder to criticize trans people than to criticize some privileged white guy named Yudkowski or whatever. But those weren't the relevant power gradients in _my_ world. But _selectively_ creating clarity down but not up power gradients just reinforces existing power relations—just like how selectively criticizing arguments with politically unfavorable conclusions only reinforces your current political beliefs. I shouldn't be able to get away with claiming that [calling non-exclusively-androphilic trans women delusional perverts](/2017/Mar/smart/) is okay on the grounds that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, but that calling out Alexander and Yudkowsky would be unjustified on the grounds of starting a war or whatever. If I was being cowardly or otherwise unprincipled, I should own that instead of generating spurious justifications. Jessica was on board with a project to tear down narcissistic fantasies in general, but not on board with a project that starts by tearing down trans people's narcissistic fantasies, but then emits spurious excuses for not following that effort where it leads. @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ I could see how, under ordinary circumstances, asking Yudkowsky to weigh in on m But the only reason for my post to exist was because it would be even _more_ inappropriately demanding to ask for a clarification in the original gender-political context. The game theorist Thomas Schelling once wrote about the use of clever excuses to help one's negotiating counterparty release themselves from a prior commitment: "One must seek [...] a rationalization by which to deny oneself too great a reward from the opponent's concession, otherwise the concession will not be made."[^schelling] This is sort of what I was trying to do when soliciting—begging for—engagement-or-endorsement of "... Boundaries?" By making the post be about dolphins, I was trying to deny myself too great of a reward _on the gender-politics front_. I _don't_ think it was inappropriately demanding to expect "us" (him) to be correct _about the cognitive function of categorization_. (If not, why pretend to have a "rationality community" at all?) I was _trying_ to be as accomodating as I could, short of just letting him (us?) be wrong. -[^schelling]: _Strategy of Conflict_, Ch. 2, "An Essay on Bargaining" +[^schelling]: _The Strategy of Conflict_, Ch. 2, "An Essay on Bargaining" Maybe that's not how politics works? Could it be that, somehow, the mob-punishment mechanisms that weren't smart enough to understand the concept of "bad argument (categories are arbitrary) for a true conclusion (trans people are OK)", _were_ smart enough to connect the dots between my broader agenda and my (correct) abstract philosophy argument, such that VIPs didn't think they could endorse my correct philosophy argument, without it being _construed as_ an endorsement of me and my detailed heresies? diff --git a/content/drafts/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer.md b/content/drafts/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer.md index 29b1e35..a44d050 100644 --- a/content/drafts/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer.md +++ b/content/drafts/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer.md @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ I would have _never_ said that to an actual ("cis") woman in a similar context ------- -I talked about my autogynephilia to a (cis) female friend over Messenger. It took some back-and-forth to explain the concept. +I talked about my autogynephilia to a (cis) female friend over Messenger. It took some back-and-forth to explain the concept. I had mentioned "misdirected heterosexuality"; she said, "Hm, so, like, you could date girls better if you were a girl?" diff --git a/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md b/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md index aaf6f27..1637a85 100644 --- a/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md +++ b/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md @@ -217,8 +217,6 @@ From this, Jessica derived the moral that when people are doing something that s Michael said that part of the reason this worked was because it represented a clear threat to skapegoat, while also _not_ skapegoating, and not surrendering the option to do so later; it was significant that Jessica's choice of example positioned her on the side of the powerful social-justice coalition. -"Riley" said that the amount of social-justice talk in the post rose to the level where he wouldn't dare criticize it or even mention it (!) in public, regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed. - ------ On 4 July 2019, Scott Alexander published ["Some Clarifications on Rationalist Blogging"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/), disclaiming any authority as a "rationalist" leader. ("I don't want to claim this blog is doing any kind of special 'rationality' work beyond showing people interesting problems [...] Insofar as [_Slate Star Codex_] makes any pretensions to being 'rationalist', it's a rationalist picnic and not a rationalist monastery.") I assumed this was inspired by Ben's request back in March that Scott "alter the beacon" so as to not confuse people about what the current-year community was. I appreciated it. diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index c274569..f5c7cc4 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -1,43 +1,48 @@ near editing tier— -_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language +✓ explain that "A Human's Guide to Words" / 37 Ways are the same text _ explain the title -_ so embarrassed after the Singularity -_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it -_ It's not clear anyone he usually respects was making this mistake; it seems likely that the original thread was subtweeting Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake -_ explain that "A Human's Guide to Words" / 37 Ways are the same text -_ Noether's theorem allusion re "... Boundaries?" -_ smooth out "still had his email" callback _ Caliphate / craft and the community -_ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era -_ pt. 1 end should summarize missing part a little more -_ pt. 1 end needs to mention BABSCon (back referenced) _ happy price subject line in pt. 1 _ incentives of gatekeeping and system-mandated lies +_ conflict theory of transness!! +_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language _ "Margaret" discussion needs to cover the part where I'd cause less disruption if I transitioned +_ so embarrassed after the Singularity +_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it +_ Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake +_ scan through "People" for any more details I want to incorporate later +_ pt. 1 end should summarize missing part a little more +_ pt. 1 end needs to mention BABSCon (back referenced) +_ more self-awareness about the ethical +_ born five years too early + + +"pro editor might know better how to fix this" tier— +_ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era +_ smooth out "still had his email" callback people to consult specifically before pt. 1–3: sent, need approval for pt. 1-2— _ hostile prereader, maybe?? (first-choice: April) - professional editor -✓ Tail (AGP discussion) [pt. 1] +✓ Tail (AGP discussion) ✓ Anna -- "Riley" +✓ Ben/Jessica (Michael) +✓ "Riley" - "Thomas" -- Ben/Jessica (Michael) [pt. 2-] -- "Rebecca" (consent, pseudonym choice) [pt. 2, not before 15 June] +- "Rebecca" - Scott +- Sarah to send (Discord)— -_ Alicorn: briefly, and for Melkor Glowfic reference link [pt. 2] +_ Alicorn to write— -_ Sarah (name mention, whether to name conversation) [pt. 1-2] -_ Sophia [pt. 1] +_ Sophia _ "Margaret" - ---------------- _ "Lenore" psychiatric disaster @@ -2678,3 +2683,9 @@ Like all intellectuals, as a teenager I imagined that I would write a book. It w * In the Ruby slapfight, I was explicit about "You shouldn't be making moderation decisions based on seniority"—this time, I've moved on to just making decisions based on seniority; if we're doing consequentialism based on how to attract people to the website, it's clear that there are no purer standards left to appeal to ] + +insane religious fantatics who "merely" want heretics to know their place (as opposed to wanting to hurt or exile them) are still insane religious fanatics. + +A hill of validity in defense of meaning. + +playing a Dagny Taggart strategy: https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1606718513267486721 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index ce14ff5..57cb19c 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -426,4 +426,8 @@ 06/16/2023,116273,-1720 06/17/2023,116249,-24 06/18/2023,116249,0 -06/19/2023,, \ No newline at end of file +06/19/2023,116249,0 +06/20/2023,116249,0 +06/21/2023,116226,-23 +06/22/2023,116226,0 +06/23/2023,, \ No newline at end of file