check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / a-hill-of-validity-sections.md

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
index bda48db..3c64573 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _ more examples of Yudkowsky's arrogance
 _ "The Correct Contrarian Cluster" and race/IQ
 _ taqiyya
 _ refusing to give a probability (When Not to Use Probabilities? Shut Up and Do the Impossible?)
 _ "The Correct Contrarian Cluster" and race/IQ
 _ taqiyya
 _ refusing to give a probability (When Not to Use Probabilities? Shut Up and Do the Impossible?)

+_ retrieve comment on pseudo-lies post in which he says its OK for me to comment even though

 
 
 far editing tier—
 
 
 far editing tier—


@@ -817,7 +818,13 @@ The HEXACO personality model considers "honesty" and "humility" a single factor
 
 —and would be unforgivable if it weren't so _inexplicable_.
 
 
 —and would be unforgivable if it weren't so _inexplicable_.
 

-... not _actually_ inexplicable. There was, in fact, an obvious explanation: that Yudkowsky was trying to bolster his reputation amongst progressives by positioning himself on the right side of history, and was tailoring a fake rationality lesson to suit that goal. But _Eliezer Yudkowsky wouldn't do that_. I had to assume this was a honest mistake.
+... not _actually_ inexplicable. There was, in fact, an obvious explanation: that
+
+
+Yudkowsky was trying to bolster his reputation amongst progressives by positioning himself on the right side of history, and was tailoring a fake rationality lesson to suit that goal.
+
+
+But _Eliezer Yudkowsky wouldn't do that_. I had to assume this was a honest mistake.

 
 At least, a _pedagogy_ mistake. If Yudkowsky _just_ wanted to make a politically neutral technical point about the difference between fact-claims and policy claims _without_ "picking a side" in the broader cultural war dispute, these Tweets did a very poor job of it. I of course agree that pronoun usage conventions, and conventions about who uses what bathroom, are not, themselves, factual assertions about sex chromosomes in particular. I'm not saying that Yudkowsky made a false statement there. Rather, I'm saying that it's 
 
 
 At least, a _pedagogy_ mistake. If Yudkowsky _just_ wanted to make a politically neutral technical point about the difference between fact-claims and policy claims _without_ "picking a side" in the broader cultural war dispute, these Tweets did a very poor job of it. I of course agree that pronoun usage conventions, and conventions about who uses what bathroom, are not, themselves, factual assertions about sex chromosomes in particular. I'm not saying that Yudkowsky made a false statement there. Rather, I'm saying that it's 
 


@@ -838,9 +845,11 @@ https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-lia-thomas-birth-certificates Z
 
 ]
 
 
 ]
 

-Writing out this criticism now, the situation doesn't feel _confusing_, anymore. Yudkowsky was very obviously being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives. That's a thing that public intellectuals do. And, again, I agree that the distinction between facts and policy decisions _is_ a valid one, even if I thought it was being selectively invoked here as an [isolated demand for rigor](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/) because of the political context. Coming from _anyone else in the world_, I would have considered the thread fine—a solidly above-average performance, really. I wouldn't have felt confused or betrayed at all. Coming from Eliezer Yudkowsky, it was—confusing.
+Writing out this criticism now, the situation doesn't feel _confusing_, anymore. Yudkowsky was very obviously being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives. That's a thing that public intellectuals do. And, again, I agree that the distinction between facts and policy decisions _is_ a valid one, even if I thought it was being selectively invoked here as an [isolated demand for rigor](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/) because of the political context. Coming from _anyone else in the world_, I would have considered the thread fine—a solidly above-average performance,

 
 

-Because of my hero worship, "he's being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives" wasn't in my hypothesis space; I _had_ to assume the thread was an "honest mistake" in his rationality lessons, rather than (what it actually was, what it _obviously_ actually was) hostile political action.
+really. I wouldn't have felt confused or betrayed at all. Coming from Eliezer Yudkowsky, it was—confusing.
+
+Because of my hero worship,

 
 
 > People probably change their mind more often than they explicitly concede arguments, which is fine because intellectual progress is more important than people who were wrong performing submission.
 
 
 > People probably change their mind more often than they explicitly concede arguments, which is fine because intellectual progress is more important than people who were wrong performing submission.


@@ -857,10 +866,6 @@ My 28 November 2018 text to Michael—
 I remember going downstairs to impulsively confide in a senior engineer, an older bald guy who exuded masculinity, who you could tell by his entire manner and being was not infected by the Berkeley mind-virus, no matter how loyally he voted Democrat—not just about the immediate impetus of this Twitter thread, but this whole _thing_ of the past couple years where my entire social circle just suddenly decided that guys like me could be women by means of saying so. He was sympathetic.
 
 
 I remember going downstairs to impulsively confide in a senior engineer, an older bald guy who exuded masculinity, who you could tell by his entire manner and being was not infected by the Berkeley mind-virus, no matter how loyally he voted Democrat—not just about the immediate impetus of this Twitter thread, but this whole _thing_ of the past couple years where my entire social circle just suddenly decided that guys like me could be women by means of saying so. He was sympathetic.
 
 

-[TODO: paraphrase remaining interaction with Scott, or not worth the space?
-
-> I don't have a simple, mistake-theoretic characterization of the language and social conventions that everyone should use such that anyone who defected from the compromise would be wrong. The best I can do is try to objectively predict the consequences of different possible conventions—and of conflicts over possible conventions.
-

 helping Norton live in the real world
 
 Scott says, "It seems to me pretty obvious that the mental health benefits to trans people are enough to tip the object-level first-pass uilitarian calculus."; I don't think _anything_ about "mental health benefits to trans people" is obvious 
 helping Norton live in the real world
 
 Scott says, "It seems to me pretty obvious that the mental health benefits to trans people are enough to tip the object-level first-pass uilitarian calculus."; I don't think _anything_ about "mental health benefits to trans people" is obvious 


@@ -889,9 +894,6 @@ The McGongall turning into a cat parody may actually be worth fitting in—McCon
 
 Michael on EA suppressing credible criticism https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1559534045914177538
 
 
 Michael on EA suppressing credible criticism https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1559534045914177538
 

-"epistemic hero"
-https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584
-

 zinger from 93—
 > who present "this empirical claim is inconsistent with the basic tenets of my philosophy" as an argument against the _claim_
 
 zinger from 93—
 > who present "this empirical claim is inconsistent with the basic tenets of my philosophy" as an argument against the _claim_
 


@@ -1182,7 +1184,7 @@ If you _don't_ have intent-to-inform, but make sure to never, ever say false thi
 
 ----
 
 
 ----
 

-comment on pseudo-lies post in which he says its OK for me to comment even though
+

 
 bitter comments about rationalists—
 https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/qXwmMkEBLL59NkvYR/the-lesswrong-2018-review-posts-need-at-least-2-nominations/comment/d4RrEizzH85BdCPhE
 
 bitter comments about rationalists—
 https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/qXwmMkEBLL59NkvYR/the-lesswrong-2018-review-posts-need-at-least-2-nominations/comment/d4RrEizzH85BdCPhE


@@ -1200,6 +1202,9 @@ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts?commen
 Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts
 
 Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts
 

+"epistemic hero"
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584
+

 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1434906470248636419
 > Anyways, Scott, this is just the usual division of labor in our caliphate: we're both always right, but you cater to the crowd that wants to hear it from somebody too modest to admit that, and I cater to the crowd that wants somebody out of that closet.
 
 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1434906470248636419
 > Anyways, Scott, this is just the usual division of labor in our caliphate: we're both always right, but you cater to the crowd that wants to hear it from somebody too modest to admit that, and I cater to the crowd that wants somebody out of that closet.