-on deck—
+blocky sections corresponding to an "event"—
+_ Christmas party 2019
+_ wireheading his fiction subreddit
-_ quote second out of patience email
-_ giving up on him, don't want to waste any more time, last email
+_ Sasha disaster (dedicate a day?)
+_ the dolphin war (dedicate a day?)
With internet available—
+_ Newtonmas
+_ link "Untitled" for Scott's anti-feminism
+_ my mother on "dolphins are intelligent"
+_ link to MIRIcult archive
+_ italics in _The Nation_ article quote?
+_ link "Hero Licensing" chapter of Inadequate Equilibria
+_ "not taking into account considerations" → rephrase to quote "God's dictionary"
+_ what time of day was my Christmas conversation with Scott?
+_ check links and date on the fiction subreddit wireheading
+_ when I ref'd Scott to Tailcalled, did I also suggest an opponent?—didn't copy-paste that part
+_ "Steve Sailer retweeted me today" (20 November 19)—which Tweet was it?
+_ "McCarthyist" should link to Moldbug on the "Brown Scare"
+_ check on wording of Yudkowsky's anti-Moldbug comment on LW
+_ my public objection to Yudkowsky's denunciation of NRx https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1164259164819845120
+_ except when it's net bad to have concluded Y: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/BgEG9RZBtQMLGuqm7/[Error%20communicating%20with%20LW2%20server]/comment/LgLx6AD94c2odFxs4
+_ my history of sniping in Yudkowsky's mentions
+_ comments on "Self-Consciousness wants to make"
+_ Scott vs. Ben on Drowning Children
+_ Ray and D. Xu's comments on "The Incentives"
+_ "Causal vs. Social Reality"
+_ elaborate on why I'm not leaking sensitive bits, by explaining what can be inferred by what was and wasn't said in public
+_ what is the dictionary definition of _gestalt_ (maybe link it?)
+_ better examples from "Yes Requires the Possibility of No"
+_ my comment about having changed my mind about "A Fable of Science and Politics"
_ me remarking to "Wilhelm" that I think I met Vanessa at Solstice once, commented on Greg Egan
_ debate with Benquo and Jessicata
_ more Yudkowsky Facebook comment screenshots
far editing tier—
+_ post-Christmas conversation should do a better job of capturing the war, that Jessica thinks Scott is Bad for being a psychiatrist
+_ conversation with Scott should include the point where I'm trying to do AI theory
+_ Anna "everyone knows" we don't have free speech 2 Mar 2019, self-centeredness about which global goods matter
+_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
_ make sure to quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy before calling back to it
_ tie off Anna's plot arc?
+_ explain earlier that my practice of "throw money at things" also applied to my friendship with Anna
+_ mention my robot cult history (I've been here since the late 'aughts)
+_ ask Anna what she meant by "soldiers in an ambulance"; I was going to write up an explanation for Ben, but I don't seem to remember
_ quote one more "Hill of Meaning" Tweet emphasizing fact/policy distinction
_ conversation with Ben about physical injuries (this is important because it explains where the "cut my dick off rhetoric" came from)
_ context of his claim to not be taking a stand
_ clarify "Merlin didn't like Vassar" example about Mike's name
+_ being friends with Anna desipite being political enemies (~May 2019)
_ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
_ smoother transition between "deliberately ambiguous" and "was playing dumb"; I'm not being paranoid for attributing political motives to him, because he told us that he's doing it
_ when I'm too close to verbatim-quoting someone's email, actually use a verbatim quote and put it in quotes
_ Scott
_ Anna
_ secret posse member
+_ Katie (pseudonym choice)
_ Alicorn: about privacy, and for Melkor Glowfic reference link
_ someone from Alicorner #drama as a hostile prereader (Swimmer?)
_ maybe Kelsey (very briefly, just about her name)?
-_ maybe SK (briefly about his name)?
-(probably don't bother with Michael?)
+_ maybe SK (briefly about his name)? (the memoir might have the opposite problem (too long) from my hostile-shorthand Twitter snipes)
+(maybe don't bother with Michael?)
+
+marketing—
+_ Twitter
+_ Facebook
+_ Less Wrong
+_ should I buy Twitter ads to increase reach??
+_ TheMotte.org
things to bring up in consultation emails—
_ dropping "and Scott" in Jessica's description of attacking narcissim
bitter comments about rationalists—
https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/qXwmMkEBLL59NkvYR/the-lesswrong-2018-review-posts-need-at-least-2-nominations/comment/d4RrEizzH85BdCPhE
+https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/tkuknrjYCbaDoZEh5/could-we-solve-this-email-mess-if-we-all-moved-to-paid/comment/ZkreTspP599RBKsi7
+
-(If you are silent about your pain, _they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it_.)
------
"epistemic hero"
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584
+> When an epistemic hero seems to believe something crazy, you are often better off questioning "seems to believe" before questioning "crazy", and both should be questioned before shaking your head sadly about the mortal frailty of your heroes.
+
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.
-
Yudkowsky did [quote-Tweet Colin Wright on the univariate fallacy](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1124757043997372416)
(which I got to [cite in a _Less Wrong_ post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cu7YY7WdgJBs3DpmJ/the-univariate-fallacy)
(Subject: "Michael Vassar and the theory of optimal gossip")
-Since arguing at the object level had failed (["... To Make Predictions"](/2018/Feb/the-categories-were-made-for-man-to-make-predictions/), ["Reply on Adult Human Females"](/2018/Apr/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females/)), and arguing at the strictly meta level had failed (["... Boundaries?"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries)), the obvious thing to do next was to jump up to the meta-meta level and tell the story about why the "rationalists" were Dead To Me now, that [my price for joining](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q8evewZW5SeidLdbA/your-price-for-joining) was not being met. (Just like Ben had suggested in December and in April.)
-
-I found it trouble to make progress on. I felt—constrained. I didn't know how to tell the story without (as I perceived it) escalating personal conflicts or leaking info from private conversations. So instead, I mostly turned to a combination of writing bitter and insulting comments whenever I saw someone praise "the rationalists" collectively, and—more philosophy-of-language blogging!
-
-In August's ["Schelling Categories, and Simple Membership Tests"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests), I explained a nuance that had only merited a passion mention in "... Boundaries?": sometimes you might want categories for different agents to _coordinate_ on, even at the cost of some statistical "fit." (This was of course generalized from a "pro-trans" argument that had occured to me, [that self-identity is an easy Schelling point when different people disagree about what "gender" they perceive someone as](/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/).)
-
-[TODO— more blogging 2019
-
-"Algorithms of Deception!" Oct 2019
-
-"Maybe Lying Doesn't Exist" Oct 2019
-
-I was _furious_ at "Against Lie Inflation"—oh, so _now_ you agree that making language less useful is a problem?! But then I realized Scott actually was being consistent in his own frame: he's counting "everyone is angrier" (because of more frequent lying-accusations) as a cost; but, if everyone _is_ lying, maybe they should be angry!
-
-"Heads I Win" Sep 2019: I was surprised by how well this did (high karma, later included in the best-of-2019 collection); Ben and Jessica had discouraged me from bothering after I
-
-"Firming Up ..." Dec 2019: combatting Yudkowsky's not-technically-lying shenanigans
-
-]
-
-
Scott said he liked "monastic rationalism _vs_. lay rationalism" as a frame for the schism Ben was proposing.
(I wish I could use this line)
I currently write "trans woman", two words, as a strategic concession to the shibboleth-detectors of my target audience:[^two-words] I don't want to to _prematurely_ scare off progressive-socialized readers on account of mere orthography, when what I actually have to say is already disturbing enough.)
[^two-words]: For the unfamiliar: the [doctrine here](https://medium.com/@cassiebrighter/please-write-trans-women-as-two-words-487f153444fb) is that "transwoman" is cissexist, because "trans" is properly an adjective indicating a type of woman.
+
+Alicorn writes (re Kelsey's anorexia): "man it must be so weird to have a delusion and know it's a delusion and still have it"
+what's really weird is having a delusion, knowing it's a delusion, and _everyone else_ insists your delusion is true
+... and I'm not allowed to say that without drawing on my diplomacy budget, which puts a permanent distance between me and the group
+
+you can't imagine contemporary Yudkowsky adhering to Crocker's rules (http://sl4.org/crocker.html)
+
+(If you are silent about your pain, _they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it_.)
+
+4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+If we _actually had_ magical sex change technology of the kind described in ["Changing Emotions"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions), no one would even consider clever philosophy arguments about how to redefine words: people who wanted to change sex would just do it, and everyone else would use the corresponding language, not as a favor, but because it straightforwardly described reality.
+
+
+Scott said it sounded like I wasn't a 100% category absolutist, and that I would be willing to let a few tiny things through, and that our real difference is that he thought this gender thing was tiny enough to ignore, and I didn't. I thought his self-report of "tiny enough to ignore" was blatantly false: I predicted that his brain notices when trans women don't pass, and that this affected his probabilistic anticipations about them, decisions towards them, _&c._, and that when he finds out that a passing trans women is trans, then also affects his probabilistic anticipations, _&c._ This could be consistent with "tiny enough to ignore" if you draw the category boundaries of "tiny" and "ignore" the right way in order to force the sentence to come out "true" ... but you see the problem. If I took what Scott said in "... Not Man for the Categories" literally, I could make _any_ sentence true by driving a truck through the noncentral fallacy.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff