Fit in somewhere—
+For "Challenges" proper—
+
+ * transition interventions are bundled: asking for pronouns could only plausibly be a good idea if coupled with further interventions—but that's not the picture we'd get if we took Yudkowsky literally
+ * I need to acknowledge the
+> In a wide variety of cases, sure, they can clearly communicate the unambiguous sex and gender of something that has an unambiguous sex and gender, much as a different language might have pronouns that sometimes clearly communicated hair color to the extent that hair color often fell into unambiguous clusters.
+ * maybe by "much more strongly ... different firm attachments", he's pointing to different people having different intuitions about what male/female clusters map to; that's definitely a thing, but it's wrong to conflate that with "Maybe it's like not being named Oliver"; people do agree on the approximate meaning of blue and green even if there are edge cases, cite fallacy of gray
* singular they for named individuals undermined indefinite singular 'they'
- * parenthetical about where "Oliver" came from
- * some people have complained that my writing is too long, but when your interlocutors will go to the absurd length of _denying that the association of "she" with females_
* people have an incentive to fight over pronouns insofar as it's a "wedge" for more substantive issues
+
+
+4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+For postscript—
+ * some people have complained that my writing is too long, but when your interlocutors will go to the absurd length of _denying that the association of "she" with females_
* appeal to inner privacy conversation-halter https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wqmmv6NraYv4Xoeyj/conversation-halters
- * don't use "baked in" so many times
- * Aella https://knowingless.com/2019/06/06/side-effects-of-preferred-pronouns/
* "gamete size"—this is a tic where everyone knows what sex is, but no one is allowed to acknowledge the cluster
- * maybe worth explaining why I keep saying "sex category" instead of "gender"—and be consistent about it
- * transition interventions are bundled
- * also take a crack at the Aristotelan binary sports Tweet
* this post needs to exist because I can't let him have the last word
- * I need to acknowledge the
-> In a wide variety of cases, sure, they can clearly communicate the unambiguous sex and gender of something that has an unambiguous sex and gender, much as a different language might have pronouns that sometimes clearly communicated hair color to the extent that hair color often fell into unambiguous clusters.
+ * need introductory sentence before first reference to "we" or "the community"
+ * it is merited to touch on the nearest-unblocked strategy history somewhere in this piece, even if I may also need to write a longer "A Hill of Validity"
+ * also need a short statement of what I'm fighting for (AGPs are factually not women, and a culture that insists that everyone needs to lie to protect our feelings is bad for our own intellectual development; I want the things I said in "Sexual Dimorphism" to be the standard story, rather than my weird heresy)
- * maybe by "much more strongly ... different firm attachments", he's pointing to different people having different intuitions about what male/female clusters map to; that's definitely a thing, but it's wrong to conflate that with "Maybe it's like not being named Oliver"; people do agree on the approximate meaning of blue and green even if there are edge cases, cite fallacy of gray
+* need to stress that EY isn't surrendering to progressives in the straightforward way of normal academics; instead, he's trying to put on a Pretending-to-Be-Wise above-it-all independent centrist act (while being careful not to say anything that would make progs _really_ mad)
+
+ * my "self-ID is a Schelling Point" and "On the Argumentative Form" show that I'm not a partisan hack (maybe also publish a brief version of )
+
+ * I'm only doing what _he_ taught me to do
+
+
+
+> I find the "(chromosomes?)" here very amusing. I am also a Yudkowskian, Eliezer; "female human" is a cluster in thingspace :)
+https://twitter.com/EnyeWord/status/1068983389716385792
+
+> Lying about atheism, in a conv about atheism, is defecting in a coop effort about atheism.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1226605895091507200
+
+Twitter comments about "despite all my attempts to narrow it"
+
+Trying to turn me into a Jane Austen character
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ax695frGJEzGxFBK4/biology-inspired-agi-timelines-the-trick-that-never-works
+> But I suppose I cannot but acknowledge that my outward behavior seems to reveal a distribution whose median seems to fall well before 2050.
More Yudkowsky playing dumb—
> (Though considering I've literally never heard anyone else define "gender" this way, it's more like, "I consider 'cheddar' to refer to only cheese from the Parma region in Italy, and I don't appreciate being asked to lie" and that so many people give different definitions is part of the issue here; but let's set that all aside for now.)
+If we can't talk about that, then your rationality community is a _fraud_. If there's anything at all to your rationality stuff https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LqjKP255fPRY7aMzw/practical-advice-backed-by-deep-theories it should be _useful_ high-stakes pratical decisions that your community members need to make, like _whether or not to cut my dick off_. If we can't talk about the information I need to make an informed decision about that, then your rationalists are worse than useless. (Worse, because false claims to authority are more misleading than dead air.) You _motherfuckers_ need to rebrand, or disband, or be destroyed
+
+I know none of this matters (If any professional alignment researchers wasting time reading this instead of figuring out how to save the world, get back to work!!), but one would have thought that the _general_ skills of correct argument would matter for saving the world.
+
+If you don't actually believe in the [common interest of many causes](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4PPE6D635iBcGPGRy/rationality-common-interest-of-many-causes) anymore, you could _say_ that—rebrand your thing as a more narrowly-scoped existential-risk-reduction cult, rather than falsely claiming to be about modeling-and-optimizing the world
+
-----
https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228
-----
+[TODO: again, [Yudkowsky's pathological fixation on avoiding "lying"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly) is a distraction from anything that anyone actually cares about. Certainly, I don't believe (a) as stated. But something substantively _similar_ to (a), (a') that self-reports are biased by social desirability and we can't take "gender identity" literally seems _overwhelmingly_ likely to be true, and I have a study to support it— /papers/blanchard-clemmensen-steiner-social_desirability_response_set_and_systematic_distortion.pdf . This should not seem implausible to someone who co-blogged with Robin Hanson for three years! As for (b), I don't think they get more favorable treatment from the rest of Society uniformly, I absolutely believe (b') that there's a _subculture_ that encourages transition for ideological reasons among people who wouldn't think of themselves as "trans" if they lived in a different subculture.
+
+Can we talk about _that_ in your Caliphate, my (a') and (b')? (Which is the stuff I actually care about, not pronouns.) Based on my experiences trying to, my read of the situation is, No, we can't talk about that. But if so,
+
Subject: blessing to speak freely, and privacy norms?
Dear Eliezer:
-Do you particularly _care_ if I publish a couple blog posts that say some negative things about you? (That is, not just responding to object-level arguments, but also explaining why I think you've been culpably intellectually dishonest. I used to trust you as a general-purpose intellectual authority, but I think you've made it very clear that you don't think you can politically afford being worthy of that level of trust, and I think I have a legitimate interest in writing about why you're Not My Caliph.)
+Do you particularly _care_ if I publish a couple blog posts that say some negative things about you? (That is, not just responding to object-level arguments, but also carefully and exhaustively explaining the specific sense in which I think you've been culpably intellectually dishonest. I used to trust you as a general-purpose intellectual authority, but I think you've made it very clear that you don't think you can politically afford being worthy of that trust, and I think I have a legitimate interest in writing publicly about why you're Not My Caliph anymore.)
-If you actually _care_ about potential reputational damage to you from my writing things that I think I have a legitimate interest in writing about, I would be _willing_ to let you pre-read the drafts before publishing and give you the chance to object to anything you think is unfair ...
+If you actually _care_ about potential reputational damage to you from my writing things that I think I have a legitimate interest in writing about, I would be _willing_ to let you pre-read the drafts before publishing and give you the chance to object to anything you think is unfair, if you _wanted_ ...
But I'd rather agree that that's not necessary. I don't want to waste any more of your time, and I'm noticing it's a lot harder to write when I'm spending more time worrying about what you'd think of me, than on saying the things I need to say. (Because I still have an extremely messed-up cult-leader hero-worship betrayal-trauma silencing complex around you.)
-So, since you probably _don't_ particularly care (because it's not AGI alignment and therefore unimportant), **may I please have your advance blessing to just write and publish what I'm thinking so I can get it all out of my system and move on with my life?**
+So, since you probably _don't_ particularly care (because it's not AGI alignment and therefore unimportant), **may I please have your advance blessing to just write and publish what I'm thinking so I can get it all out of my system and move on with my life?**
I would assume that the privacy norm applying to me writing about our previous interactions is that I'm obviously allowed to talk about my actions, but that I can't quote your side of private conversations (_e.g._, I can mention _making_ Cheerful Price offers, but have to Glomarize as to whether you accepted), but I am allowed to _anonymously_ quote things I remember you saying (_e.g._, at the Independence Day party; if I say "Someone advised me that I was living in the should-universe, and I said [...]", and some readers could speculate that "someone" was you, that's not my fault). I don't think you can reasonably object to this, but tell me if you somehow do. I remain,
Your faithful student,
Zack M. Davis
+
+For a while, I've been meaning to write up a _different_ multi-thousand word blog post telling the Whole Dumb Story about that—not because it's an interesting story, but because I'll never be able to stop grieving and move on with my life until I get it all out of my system. (Working title: ["A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning"](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067185907843756032). Epigraph quote: Zora Neale Hurston, "If you are silent about your pain, they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it.")
+
+It's been hard to write. It _hurts_ to write. It's hard and it hurts because it's not something that _should_ need to be written.
+
+[TODO outlining coda—
+
+We prefer to have a good-faith discussion of ideas in themselves; talking about your interlocutors and speculating about their hidden motives is not what we do
+I tried the good-faith debate thing first. I tried it for years; at some point, you have to jump up a meta level and explain what you think is actually going on
+Since the Whole Dumb Story is longer and harder to write, I hope it's OK if I _briefly_ hit some of the highlights here that are relevant to analyzing Yudkowsky's comments on "speakable" arguments, with the understanding that I might write a longer post later
+
+The Sequences taught me some really important things about sex differences and why not to take my cross-sex fantasies literally; I wrote about this in ["Sexual Dimorphism in Yudkowsky's Sequences"](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/)
+
+The ]
+
+https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bounded-distrust
+
+If "rationalists" are both a social cluster, and seekers of systematically-correct-reasoning, then people trying to protect the power and prestige of the social cluster face an incentive to invent fake epistemology lessons when the correct answer is unpopular! That's fatal!!
+
+If someone fires back bad faith allegations at me and is prepared to defend them, that's actually more invigorating and productive than the Berkeley equilibrium
+
+I don't think I'm setting [my price for joining](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q8evewZW5SeidLdbA/your-price-for-joining) particularly high here?
+
+[principled trans people should be offended, too!]
+
+[our beliefs about dolphins are downstream of Scott's political incentives]
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff