From fa266b479646169e73cbdaa72ee91b2c344cd3b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake" <ultimatelyuntruethought@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 08:24:47 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] drafting "Facing Reality" review and "Challenges"

---
 content/drafts/book-review-facing-reality.md  | 41 +++++++++++++------
 ...s-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md | 23 ++++++++---
 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/drafts/book-review-facing-reality.md b/content/drafts/book-review-facing-reality.md
index 75d065b..697e4a8 100644
--- a/content/drafts/book-review-facing-reality.md
+++ b/content/drafts/book-review-facing-reality.md
@@ -34,17 +34,19 @@ Here and through the remaining chapters up until the conclusion, Murray elects t
 
 The next four chapters follow a formula: "Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", "Race Differences in Violent Crime", "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", and "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Violent Crime." (Those chapter titles felt awful just to type!! Am I really doing this?) Much of the value of these chapters is in the graphs and tables documenting statistics that many readers will be unfamiliar with. The scatterplots of nationally-representative test scores are interesting. The black–white gap _did_ shrink between '70s when it was about 1.3 standard deviations, until about the 1990s, but has been stubbornly stable since then at about 0.85 standard deviations (a.k.a. [Cohen's _d_](/2019/Sep/does-general-intelligence-deflate-standardized-effect-sizes-of-cognitive-sex-differences/)). Murray estimates the current white–Latino difference at 0.62 standard deviations, and the current white–Asian difference at 0.3 standard deviations (favoring Asians). 
 
-Murray briefly addresses two popular (but mutually in tension) classes of objection: that the gaps will vanish with better (more equitable) education policy, and that the tests are biased. The response to the we-can-fix-it objection is basically, "We tried that and it didn't work": a lot of money and effort has been poured into attempts to narrow the racial achievement gap over the past thirty years of its stability, but we just don't know of any interventions that lastingly increase cognitive ability for _anyone_. The response to the tests-are-biased objection is basically, "We checked for that and it doesn't work": psychometricians have all sorts of technical measures to check that their tests are doing what they think, but beyond that, if the tests were biased, you would expect them to underpredict school and workplace performance, and that's not what we see: for example, black people get worse college grades than their SAT and ACT scores would predict, not better.
+Murray briefly addresses two popular (but mutually in tension) classes of objection: that the gaps will vanish with better (more equitable) education policy, and that the tests are biased. The response to the we-can-fix-it objection is basically, "We tried that and it didn't work": a lot of money and effort has been poured into attempts to narrow the racial achievement gap over the past thirty years of its stability, but we just don't know of any interventions that lastingly increase cognitive ability for _anyone_. The response to the tests-are-biased objection is basically, "We checked for that and it doesn't work": psychometricians have all sorts of technical measures to verify that their tests are doing what they think, but beyond that, if the tests were biased, you would expect them to underpredict school and workplace performance, and that's not what we see: for example, black people get worse college grades than their SAT and ACT scores would predict, not better.
 
-Perhaps you could argue both that the tests are racist and that teachers are _even more_ racist?—but you'd want to be specific about what alternative metric of "merit" you think they're being racist _with respect to_. A vast space of "objective" procedures can come up with a number, without giving anyone a reason to care about that particular number; if you care about group rank orderings, you _could_ come up with a measurement that gets the the group rank ordering you want. (Black people have more melanin than white people, on average! People with more letters in their name take longer to say their name out loud, on average! Cats do better than humans on a test of scratching, on average! "Hispanic" comes before "White" in alphabetical order!) The problem is that it looks like the "cognitive ability" thing that psychometricians try to measure is actually pretty robust abstraction that captures variation _in individuals_ that people care about (like the ability to master a profession); if it were just a tool of racial oppression, it's hard to see why it would work so well _within_ groups.
+Perhaps you could argue both that the tests are racist and that teachers are _even more_ racist?—but you'd want to be specific about what alternative metric of "merit" you think they're being racist _with respect to_. The thing about tests is, a vast space of "objective" procedures can come up with a number, without giving anyone a reason to care about that particular number; if you care about group rank orderings, you _could_ come up with a measurement that gets the the group rank ordering you want. (Black people have more melanin than white people, on average! People with more letters in their name take longer to say their name out loud, on average! Cats do better than humans on a test of scratching, on average! "Hispanic" comes before "White" in alphabetical order!) The problem is that it looks like the "cognitive ability" thing that psychometricians are trying to measure is actually pretty robust abstraction that summarizes variation _in individuals_ that people care about (like the ability to master a profession); if it were just a tool of racial oppression, it's hard to see why it would work so well _within_ groups.
 
-In the chapter on violent crime, Murray presents a table of black/white and Latino/white ratios of arrests for violent crimes in thirteen cities for which data was available. The median black/white ratio was 9.0 (that is, 9 black people per 1 white person) and the median Latino/white ratio was 2.4.
+In the chapter on violent crime, Murray presents a table of black/white and Latino/white ratios of arrests for violent crimes in thirteen cities for which data was available. The median black/white ratio was 9.0 (that is, 9 black people arrested for violent crimes per 1 white person so arrested) and the median Latino/white ratio was 2.4.
 
-To argue that these ratios are driven by real differences in behavior rather than biased police, Murray attempts to "triangulate" the true crime rate with other data. For example, arrests for murder specifically are going to be less biased by selective enforcement or fraud: even evil and corrupt cops who don't consider themselves above, say, planting evidence of drugs, seem less likely to fake a human corpse. So if racial differences in murder charges match differences in violent-crime arrests more generally, that's probabilistic evidence that arrests are tracking a real difference in criminal behavior.
+To argue that these ratios are driven by real differences in behavior rather than biased police, Murray attempts to "triangulate" the true crime rate with other data. For example, arrests for murder specifically are going to be less biased by selective enforcement or fraud: even evil and corrupt cops who don't consider themselves above, say, planting evidence of drugs, seem less likely or able to fake a human corpse. So if racial differences in murder charges match differences in violent-crime arrests more generally, that's probabilistic evidence that arrests are tracking a real difference in criminal behavior.
 
-Interestingly, Murray argues that this is true even if you don't think police are generally getting the right suspect (!!), as long as the suspect who is arrested is of the same race as the actual perpetrator, which will usually be the case given how many murders are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator knew each other (in highly segregated communities), or tied to gang activity (where gangs are almost always monoracial). The scenario most prone to racist police getting the wrong guy—non-gang-related murders where the alleged perp is black and didn't know the victim—only accounted for 4% of all homocides. Meanwhile, the group ratios for murder arrests are more stark than for violent crimes more generally: a median black/white ratio of 18.1, and a median Latino/white ratio of 4.7, which is not the pattern we would expect to see if cops were using their discretionary powers to falsely imprison blacks and Latinos on lesser charges. Another source of data for triangulation is in reports of crimes _to_ the police: if crime _victims_ aren't racist in the same way the police themselves might be, then that would show up in the numbers—and it turns out that even black and Latino _victims_ also report more black and Latino perpretrators, even in neighborhoods where they are a minority.
+Interestingly, Murray argues that this is true even if you don't think police are generally getting the right suspect (!!), as long as the suspect who is arrested is of the same race as the actual perpetrator, which will usually be the case given how many murders are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator knew each other (in highly segregated communities), or tied to gang activity (where gangs are almost always monoracial). The scenario most prone to racist police falsely accusing a black person—non-gang-related murders where the alleged perp is black and didn't know the victim—only accounted for 4% of all homocides. Meanwhile, the group ratios for murder arrests are more stark than for violent crimes more generally: a median black/white ratio of 18.1, and a median Latino/white ratio of 4.7, which is not the pattern we would expect to see if cops were using their discretionary powers to falsely imprison blacks and Latinos on lesser charges. Another source of data for triangulation is in reports of crimes _to_ the police: if crime _victims_ aren't racist in the same way the police themselves might be, then that would show up in the numbers—and it turns out that even black and Latino victims also report more black and Latino perpretrators, even in neighborhoods where they are a minority.
 
-As an argument about patterns of behavior in our own world, I find this quite convincing, but again, Murray's agnosticism about the causes of behavior limits its applicability; I expect the sophisticated advocate of structural-racism theories to be entirely unmoved. Even if the police sometimes getting the wrong man can't change the conclusion about which races do how many murders, a world in which the police sometimes get the wrong man of the same race is _exactly_ the kind of factor that would contribute to structural racism—if the System is going to treat you interchangeably anyway, that changes your incentives to commit crime. (Is this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy plausible? I honestly don't know! I haven't done the math!) We don't know what other equilibria might be possible for a civilization with a discipline of Actual Social Science, even if there's no obvious way to jump out of our own equilibrium with the crude "policy" levers available to actualy-existing governments.
+As an argument about patterns of behavior in our own world, I find this quite convincing, but again, Murray's agnosticism about the causes of behavior limits its applicability; I expect the sophisticated advocate of structural-racism theories to be entirely unmoved. Even if the police sometimes getting the wrong man can't change the conclusion about which races do how many murders, a world in which the police sometimes get the wrong man of the same race is _exactly_ the kind of factor that would contribute to structural racism—if the System is going to treat members of your racial caste interchangeably anyway, that changes your _incentives_ to commit crime, relative to the world where people were [literally raceblind](/2021/Mar/link-see-color/). We don't know what other equilibria might be possible for a civilization with a discipline of Actual Social Science, even if there's no obvious way to jump out of our own equilibrium with the crude "policy" levers available to actualy-existing governments.
+
+(Note, "We don't know what's possible (given the exact right conditions)" is _not_ the same thing as "Anything is possible (if we all just believe in a better world)". Ignorance may be conducive to hope, but does not constitute any _specific_ hope.)
 
 At times, Murray's inability in his commentary to consider flaws in the _status quo_ seems like a blindness bordering on complicity. Of the criminal justice system, he writes:
 
@@ -52,20 +54,21 @@ At times, Murray's inability in his commentary to consider flaws in the _status
 
 This is all very "reasonable" by the methods and epistemology of Murray's world, and I'm afraid—not a figure of speech, really afraid—that there's nothing I could say, no words I could possibly type to explain the cruel capriciousness of that world's "reasonableness" to those who haven't personally been on the other side, who have never been abused by a total institution like the "justice" system. Two three-day stints in the psych ward are [what did it to me](/2017/Jun/memoirs-of-my-recent-madness-part-i-the-unanswerable-words/). Going to school might not be bad enough if you went to a good school.
 
-_The authorities are usually trying to get it right._ I mean, yes—_by the Authority's own corrupt standards_. 
+_The authorities are usually trying to get it right._ I mean, yes—_by the Authority's own corrupt standards_. The authorities are ordinary men and women trying to do their jobs as best they can. "Getting it right" means doing what's expected of people in your position by the power structure around you, which usually has _some_ connection with the written rules which are ostensibly supposed to prevent abuses of power. If the rules say that the police can't just kidnap people arbitrarily—there's paperwork to be filled out documenting _why_ an arrest was made—then, yes, the paperwork will tend to be filled out. That doesn't mean the things written on the paperwork are actually _true_.
+
+[TODO: I have paperwork from being in psych prison—yes, I know, they call it a "hospital"—that says I self-presented due to thoughts of sucide. That isn't true.]
 
+Notice how casually Murray mentions the decision of what charges are to be filed as "a main bargaining chip in a plea bargain negotiation"! As a description of the system as it actually exists, this is perfectly accurate, but it seems important to notice that the entire concept of plea bargaining is a perversion of justice. One would have hoped for a system that proportionately punishes people for the specific crimes that they _actually did_, in order to disincentivize crime. Instead, we have the Orwellian nightmare of a system that says, "We think you're guilty of something, but it'll be easier for you if you confess to being guilty of something less bad, [and swear under oath that no one threatened you to confess](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/)."
 
-[by the authority's own corrupt standards!! TODO: ...
-http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/
-https://archive.is/HUkzY public defender
-finish section]
+In calling the current system an Orwellian nightmare, I'm _not_ saying I personally know how to do better. (If abolishing the police would just result in anarchy and mob justice, that would just be a different kind of nightmare.) I'm trying to highlight how the statistics output by the actually-existing "justice" and "education" systems need to be understood as data about what's happening _within_ the current power structure managed by these systems, and shouldn't be naïvely seen as solely reflecting an independently existing reality of "education" and "crime." If there were no schools, people would still learn things (people still _do_ learn things outside of school); if there were no law enforcement, people would still take advantage of each other (people still _do_ take advantage of each other, outside the reaches of the law).
 
+[TODO: if police use drug crimes as a plea bargaining chip because they're easier to prosecute, that may be a pragmatic adaptation to it being hard to prove real crimes, but it also sets up a situation where the police as an entity are preying on communities that use drugs]
 
 [TODO: summarize chapter on first-order effects of IQ]
 
 [TODO: summarize chapter on first-order effects of crime]
 
-Murray wraps up with a chapter on "If We Don't Face Reality." The facts of IQ and crime differences don't imply any particular policy, but Murray wants researchers to at least be able to control IQ as an independent variable, and for the targets of our ongoing Cultural Revolution to offer a little more resistance. Moreover, Murray contends, identity politics is an existential threat to the American system: it was one thing when just minorities thought of themselves as collective interest groups, but if the white working class picks up the same playbook, then the ideal of individualism will be truly lost within the tides of ethnic conflict. Murray identifies eliminating government-sponsored affirmative action as politically impossible, "not within our grasp", but that a partial solution would be for those on the center-left and center-right to reaffirm the American creed and the goal of equality before the law.
+Murray wraps up with a chapter on "If We Don't Face Reality." The facts of IQ and crime differences don't imply any particular policy, but Murray wants researchers to at least be able to control for IQ as an independent variable, and for the targets of our ongoing Cultural Revolution to offer a little more resistance. Moreover, Murray contends, identity politics is an existential threat to the American system: it was one thing when just minorities thought of themselves as collective interest groups, but if the white working class picks up the same playbook, then the ideal of individualism will be truly lost within the tides of ethnic conflict. Murray identifies eliminating government-sponsored affirmative action as politically impossible, "not within our grasp", but that a partial solution would be for those on the center-left and center-right to reaffirm the American creed and the goal of equality before the law.
 
 To me, this seems ... pretty naïve? I _also_ feel a lot of affection and loyalty to the previous ideological regime, but what made equality before the law such an effective marketing promise was the unstated premise that it would lead to, you know, _actual_ equality. If that's _empirically not true_, and people _aren't_ actually colorblind—if people notice ethnicity as a cluster in high-dimensional configuration space and tend to care more about people "like us"—then the classic ideal of individualist egalitarianism 
 
@@ -202,3 +205,17 @@ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354010004_Genetic_Ancestry_and_General_
 
 "Human capital mediates natural selection in contemporary humans"
 https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ueaeco/UEA-ECO-21-02_Updated.pdf
+
+[TODO: Scott Alexander on "involuntary": "This sounds super Orwellian, but it really is done with the patient's best interest at heart." https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/22/navigating-and-or-avoiding-the-inpatient-mental-health-system/ ]
+
+[TODO: https://archive.is/HUkzY public defender
+
+The racist magazine _American Renaissance_ once published [an article by a public defender](https://archive.is/HUkzY) complaining about the behavior of his black clients.
+
+The lawyer
+
+> If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame _you_. "You ain't workin' fo' me." "It like you workin' with da State." Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets.
+
+I feel a lot of sympathy for the defendant 
+
+]
diff --git a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md
index 01230cd..1e3829b 100644
--- a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md
+++ b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md
@@ -4,6 +4,15 @@ Category: commentary
 Tags: Eliezer Yudkowsky
 Status: draft
 
+> Go, Soul, the body's guest,  
+> Upon a thankless errand:  
+> Fear not to touch the best;  
+> The truth shall be thy warrant:  
+> Go, since I needs must die,  
+> And give the world the lie.
+>
+> —["The Lie" by Walter Raleigh](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/trb9HPWFk8Gy9MBdN/less-wrong-poetry-corner-walter-raleigh-s-the-lie)
+
 [In a February 2021 Facebook post, Eliezer Yudkowsky inveighs against English's system of singular third-person pronouns](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228). As a matter of clean language design, English's lack of a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun is a serious flaw. The function of pronouns is to have a brief way to refer back to entities already mentioned: it's more user-friendly to be able to say "Katherine put her book on its shelf" rather than "Katherine put Katherine's book on the book's shelf". But then why couple that grammatical function to sex-category membership? You shouldn't _need_ to take a stance on someone's sex in order to talk about her or him putting a book on the shelf.
 
 This affects, for example, science-fiction authors writing about AIs or hermaphroditic aliens (which don't have a sex), or mystery authors writing about a crime suspect whose identity (and therefore, sex) is unknown. In these cases, _she_ or _he_ are inappropriate, but the English language offers no alternative lacking its own downsides: _it_ is understood to refer to non-persons, _they_ gets conjugated as a plural, and neopronouns like [_ey/em/eir_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun)—or [_ve/ver/vis_](http://www.urticator.net/essay/0/30.html), as used in some of [Yudkowsky's juvenilia](https://intelligence.org/files/CFAI.pdf)—are hard to rally adoption for because pronouns are a [closed class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes)—not something people are used to new members of being coined, in the way that people are used to seeing new nouns and adjectives.
@@ -20,19 +29,23 @@ Fair enough. Sounds like an argument for universal singular _they_ (and eating t
 
 > So it seems to me that the simplest and best protocol is, "'He' refers to the set of people who have asked us to use 'he', with a default for those-who-haven't-asked that goes by gamete size" and to say that this just _is_ the normative definition. Because it is _logically_ rude, not just socially rude, to try to bake any other more complicated and controversial definition _into the very language protocol we are using to communicate_.
 
-The problem with this is that [the alleged rationale for the proposal _very obviously and blatantly_ does not support the proposal](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i6fKszWY6gLZSX2Ey/fake-optimization-criteria). If your default pronoun for those-who-haven't-asked goes by perceived sex (which one presumes is what Yudkowsky means by "gamete size"—we don't typically observe people's gametes!), then you're still baking sex-category information into the language protocol in the form of the default! Moreover, this is clearly an "intended" rather than an accidental effect of the proposal, in the sense that a policy that _actually_ avoided baking sex-category information into the language (like universal singular _they_, or name-initial- or hair-color-based pronouns) would not have the same appeal to many of those who support self-chosen pronouns: _why_ is it that some people would want to opt-out of the default sex-based pronouns?
+The problem with this is that [the alleged rationale for the proposal _very obviously and blatantly_ does not support the proposal](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i6fKszWY6gLZSX2Ey/fake-optimization-criteria). If your default pronoun for those-who-haven't-asked goes by perceived sex (which one presumes is what Yudkowsky means by "gamete size"—we don't typically observe people's gametes!), then you're still baking sex-category information into the language protocol in the form of the default! Moreover, this is clearly an "intended" rather than an accidental effect of the proposal, in the sense that a policy that _actually_ avoided baking sex-category information into the language (like universal singular _they_, or name-initial- or hair-color-based pronouns) would not have the same appeal to many of those who support self-chosen pronouns: _why_ is it that some people would want to opt-out of the sex-based default?
 
 Well, it would seem that the motivating example—the historical–causal explanation for why we're having this conversation about pronoun reform in the first place—is that trans men (female-to-male transsexuals) prefer to be called _he_, and trans women (male-to-female transsexuals) prefer to be called _she_. (Transsexuals seem much more common than people who just have principled opinions about pronoun reform without any accompanying desire to change what sex other people perceive them as.)
 
 But the _reason_ transsexuals want this is _because_ they're trying to change their socially-perceived sex category and actually-existing English speakers interpret _she_ and _he_ as conveying sex-category information. People who request _he/him_ pronouns aren't doing it because they want their subject pronoun to be a two-letter word rather than a three-letter word, or because they hate the [voiceless postalveolar fricative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_postalveolar_fricative). They're doing it _because_, in English, those are the pronouns for _males_. If it were _actually true_ that _she_ and _he_ were just two alternative third-person pronouns that could be used interchangeably with no difference in meaning, then _there would be no reason to care_ which one someone used, as long as the referent was clear. But this doesn't match people's behavior: using gender pronouns other than those preferred by the subject is typically responded to as a social attack (as would be predicted by the theory that _she _ and _he_ convey sex-category information and transsexuals don't want to be perceived as their natal sex), not with, "Oh, it took me an extra second to parse your sentence because you used a pronoun different from the one the subject prefers, but now I understand what you meant" (as would be predicted by the theory that "_he_ refers to the set of people who have asked us to use _he_ [...] and to say that this just _is_ the normative definition").
 
-You could argue, as Yudkowsky has, that this situation is an artefact of bad language design. As the post says earlier:
+You can't have it both ways. "That toy is worthless", says one child to another, "_therefore_, you should give it to me." But if the toy were _actually_ worthless, why is the first child demanding it? "Pronouns shouldn't convey sex-category information," is a fine [motte](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/), but it's not consistent with the bailey of, "_Therefore_, when people request that you alter your pronoun usage in order to change the sex-category information being conveyed, you should obey the request."
+
+Even if the situation is an artifact of bad language design, as Yudkowsky argues—that in a saner world, this conflict would have never come up—that doesn't automatically favor resolving the conflict in favor of self-chosen pronouns. Perhaps in a saner world, all children would have their own toys, but that doesn't tell us what to do when children are fighting over a toy in our own world. [TODO: weak analogy, cut]
+
+[TODO: transition sentence]
 
-> It is Shenanigans to try to bake your stance on how clustered things are and how appropriate it is to discretely cluster them using various criteria, _into the pronoun system of a language and interpretation convention that you insist everybody use!_
+> It is Shenanigans to try to bake your stance on how clustered things are and how appropriate it is to discretely cluster them using various criteria, _into the pronoun system of a language and interpretation convention that you insist everybody use!
 
-(Incidentally, the "that you insist everybody use" part is a bit of a [DARVO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) in the current political environment around Yudkowsky's social sphere. A substantial fraction of the opposition to self-chosen pronouns is opposition to _compelled speech_: many people who don't think some trans person's transition should "count", don't want to be coerced into legitimizing it with the pronoun choices in their _own_ speech, but don't object to _other_ people who _do_ want to legitimize the transition using preferred pronouns in _their_ speech. But leaving that aside—)
+(Incidentally, the "that you insist everybody use" part is a bit of a [DARVO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) in the current political environment around Yudkowsky's social sphere. A lot of the opposition to self-chosen pronouns is opposition to _compelled speech_: many people who don't think some trans person's transition should "count", don't want to be coerced into legitimizing it with the pronoun choices in their _own_ speech, but don't object to _other_ people who _do_ want to legitimize the transition using preferred pronouns in _their_ speech. But leaving that aside—)
 
-The _main_ problem with this is, in dicussing how to reform English, we're not actually in the position of defining a language from scratch. Arguing that the cultural evolution of English involved Shenanigans, doesn't itself make the Shenangians go away. Certainly, language can evolve; words can change meaning over time; if you can get the people in some community to start using language differently, then you have _ipso facto_ changed their language.
+The main problem with this is, in dicussing how to reform English, we're not actually in the position of defining a language from scratch. Arguing that the cultural evolution of English involved Shenanigans, doesn't itself make the Shenangians go away. Certainly, language can evolve; words can change meaning over time; if you can get the people in some community to start using language differently, then you have _ipso facto_ changed their language.
 
 However, when we consider language as an information-processing system that we can reason about using our standard tools of probability and game theory, we see that in order to change the meaning associate with a word, you actually _do_ have to somehow get people to change their usage. You can't just _declare_ your preferred new meaning and claim that it applies to the language as actually spoken, without users of the language changing their behavior.
 
-- 
2.17.1