drafting Mad Investor Chaos criticism post

[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 b624162..a10278f 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -976,14 +976,3 @@ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ax695frGJEzGxFBK4/biology-inspired-agi-timelines
 ------
 
 Lightwavers on Twitter (who Yudkowsky knew from /r/rational) dissed Charles Murray on Twitter
-
-https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1817422#reply-1817422
-> Strength is an externally visible and measurable quality that determines who you want in your army; you don't need to go by the presence of penises.
-
-I'm skeptical that the "But the government can't have different laws for different groups" is something that would exist in dath ilan; it makes sense that we have this hangup in our world, but if you live in a Bayesian utopia in the first place, (a) you wouldn't have a taboo about using demographic categories for decisionmaking, and (b) you wouldn't have a special taboo about the _government_ doing so (that's dictating that the government is not allowed to be Bayesian because it's the government?!); it makes sense for evolutionarily novel things like dentists, but conscription is _the worst_ example
-
-"Different rules for different groups" is a solution to a social design problem; if you rule that out, you're ruling out a lot of the design space. This is still true even if you protest, "But you have to let people _leave_ the group if they don't want to be there; it's unjust to trap them there"
-
-It makes sense for Keltham to disapprove of the status of women in Osiron, but I'd expect the objection to be _concrete_ (women in particular deserve property rights in particular) rather than "principled" (the government can't pass laws based on sex), because the principle is Earth-craziness
-
-so, what I meant was, when you enshrine a principle, "The law can't treat you differently because you're a halfling" (that is, the law can only refer to low-dimensional traits; it's not allowed to use the covariance in the big salient clusters in thick subspaces of configuration space that correspond to "protected classes"), that's decreasing the expressive power of the law, restricting the ontology that the law is about to reason about: effectively saying that Governance has to be _less_ Bayesian _because it's Governance_. That's a totally natural thing to want _if you're a 21st century American_, but seems wildly out-of-character for everything else we know about dath ilan and its cultural assumptions about Bayesian reasoning and the assumption of good-faith governance