Elena—
"the original thing that already exists without having to try" sounds fake to me
+
+
+I agree that the "SneerClub et al. hates us because they're evil bullies" hypothesis has a grain of truth to it, but stopping the analysis there seems ... _incredibly shallow and transparently self-serving_?
+
+
+------
+
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid0WA95Anng7UZZEjqYv2aWC4LxZJU7KPvcRnxkTdmNJpH4PoQQgEFtqszPbCiCnqfil?comment_id=10159410429909228
+
+If you listen to why _they_ say they hate us, it's because we're racist, sexist, transphobic fascists. The party-line response to seems to trend towards, "That's obviously false (Scott voted for Warren, look at all the social democrats on the LW/SSC serveys, &c.); they're just using that as a convenient smear because they like bullying nerds." (Fair paraphrase?)
+
+But ... the smears have a grain of truth to them, right? If "sexism" means "it's an empirical question whether innate statistical psychological sex differences of some magnitude exist, it empirically looks like they do, and this has implications about our social world", the "SSC et al. are crypto-sexists" charge is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT (e.g. https://slatestarcodex.com/.../contra-grant-on.../). (Crypto-racist, crypto-fascist, &c. are left as an exercise to the reader.)
+
+You could plead, "That's a bad definition of sexism", but that's only convincing if you've _already_ been trained in the "use empiricism and open discussion to discover policies with utilitarian-desirable outcomes" tradition; the people with a California-public-school-social-studies-plus-Tumblr education don't already _know_ that. (Source: I didn't know this at age 18 back in 'aught-six, and we didn't have Tumblr then.)
+
+In that light ... can you see why someone might find "blow the whistle on people who are claiming to be innocent but are actually guilty (of thinking bad thoughts)" to be a more compelling ethical consideration than "respect confidentiality requests"? The "debate ideas, not people" thing is a specific meta-ideological innovation, not baseline human morality!
+
+If our _actual_ problem is "Genuinely consistent rationalism is realistically always going to be an enemy of the state, because the map that fully reflects the territory is going to include facts that powerful coalitions would prefer to censor, no matter what specific ideology happens to be on top in a particular place and time (https://www.lesswrong.com/.../heads-i-win-tails-never...)", but we _think_ our problem is "We need to figure out how to exclude evil bullies", then we're in trouble!!
+
+
+> We also have an inevitable Kolmogorov Option issue but that should not be confused with the inevitable Evil Bullies issue, even if bullies attack through Kolmogorov Option issues.
+
+Being transparent about the game theory I see: intuitively, it seems like I have a selfish incentive to "support" the bullies (by publicly pointing out that they have a point, as above) insofar as I'm directly personally harmed by my social network following a Kolmogorov Option strategy rather than an open-dissidence Free Speech for Shared Maps strategy, and more bullying might cause the network to switch strategies on "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" grounds? Maybe I should explain this so people have a chance to talk me out of it?
+... hm, acutally, when I try to formalize this with the simplest possible toy model, it doesn't work (the "may as well be hung ..." effect doesn't happen given the modeling assumptions I just made up). I was going to say: our team chooses a self-censorship parameter c from 0 to 10, and faces a bullying level b from 0 to 10. b is actually b(c, p), a function of self-censorship and publicity p (also from 0 to 10). The team leaders' utility function is U(c, b) := -(c + b) (bullying and self-censorship are both bad). Suppose the bullying level is b := 10 - c + p (self-censorship decreases bullying, and publicity increases it).
+My thought was: a disgruntled team-member might want to increase p in order to induce the leaders to choose a smaller value of c. But when I do the algebra, -(c + b) = -(c + (10 - c + p)) = -c - 10 + c - p = -10 - p. (Which doesn't depend on c, seemingly implying that more publicity is just bad for the leaders without changing their choice of c? But I should really be doing my dayjob now instead of figuring out if I made a mistake in this Facebook comment.)
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff