+Actually—maybe I _do_ want to keep this narrowly scoped to the Category War, where I have a very strong case, rather than telling my whole gender/rationalism story!
+
OUTLINE
* I haven't been doing so well, and I need to tell the story for my own sanity
* I spent my entire adult life in "rationality", and I actually believed
* In 2016, it was a huge shock to realize that I could be trans, too (I thought AGP was a different thing), and making this less confusing for other people seemed in line with the rationality mission
-* slowly waking up from sex-differences denialim through LessWrong
+* slowly waking up from sex-differences denialim through LessWrong: "Changing Emotions", "Failed Utopia #4-2"
* It was pretty traumatizing when it turned out not to be!
* But I notice people kept brining up this "Categories are arbitrary, therefore it's not wrong to insist that TWAW", and that's _definitely_ wrong; that, I knew I could win
* But then Eliezer did it, too, and I _flipped the fuck out_, and set out on a mission to try to get this shit settled in public
* Theory of jurisprudence, standing, rudeness; Outside View of bad-faith nitpickers
* When email didn't work (details redacted), I thought, "Oh, it's probably because of the politics", so I wrote up the completely general version with examples about dolphins and job titles and Mullerian mimickry in snakes
* And this is _still_ being perceived as too political, even though everyone else shot first?!?!
-* And I can't object without looking
+* And I can't object without looking like a status grab
* What I think is going on. People want to say on the good size of the Blue Egregore, and that means they can't even defend the _basics_ if there's _any_ political context, or even the context of a _person_ with political cooties
* I don't know what the optimal play is ("pretend that political constraints don't exist" might not actually work in the real world), but this is pretty bad for our collective sanity, and my mental health, and I wish we could at least try to deal with it on the meta level
* I'm politically constrained, too: I don't talk about race differences even though I believe them (link to apophasis/hypocritical humor)
(["_Perhaps_, replied the cold logic. _If the world were at stake_. _Perhaps_, echoed the other part of himself, _but that is not what was actually happening_."](http://yudkowsky.net/other/fiction/the-sword-of-good))
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"One may even consider the act of defining a word as a promise to this effect. Telling someone, "I define the word 'wiggin' to mean a person with green eyes and black hair", by Gricean implication, asserts that the word "wiggin" will somehow help you make inferences / shorten your messages.
If green-eyes and black hair have no greater than default probability to be found together, nor does any other property occur at greater than default probability along with them, then the word "wiggin" is a lie: The word claims that certain people are worth distinguishing as a group, but they're not.
transitioning has _costs_; maybe you think some of those costs are illigitimate and should be game-theoretically resisted (Society's transphobia is a terrorirst who you shouldn't negotiate), but first of all, "People are good at noticing each other's sex" isn't transphobia, and second, even if you're doing game-theoretic defiance, you should make that explicit
-double-perceception of bad faith: I don't believe "categories are arbitrary" is intellectually honest (and I'm right); my interlocutors don't believe that I'm really this upset about the philosophy of language
+double-perceception of bad faith: I don't believe "categories are arbitrary" is intellectually honest (and I'm right); my interlocutors don't believe that I'm really this upset about the philosophy of language (and they're _kind of_ right)
I have 3,405 users/7,172 sessions this year, S.'s prediction lists have been 50/50 on "At least one SSC post > 100,000 hits: 50%"
contract-drafting em, SSC blogroll is most of my traffic
+people who are constrained by their Overton ratio have an incentive to make this sacred-but-unimportant issue their https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumpStat but that's cruel to me
+
+Second, consider [cause prioritization](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/prioritization-research/). If some Issues are particularly important from a utilitarian perspective, and some Issues are particularly important to Green partisans
+
+[Something to Protect](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SGR4GxFK7KmW7ckCB/something-to-protect)
+
+[make an extraordinary effort](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GuEsfTpSDSbXFiseH/make-an-extraordinary-effort)
+
+But _that_ would have to be someone else's story on someone else's blog.
+
+[No, it's not the incentives—it's you](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5nH5Qtax9ae8CQjZ9/no-it-s-not-the-incentives-it-s-you)
+
+[The Correct Contrarian Cluster](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9KvefburLia7ptEE3/the-correct-contrarian-cluster)
+
+getting a reversal was improbable, but: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/st7DiQP23YQSxumCt/on-doing-the-improbable
+
+TWAW is a positive-valence instance of the worst-argument-in-the-world, but it's still the SAME THING; if you can't see that, you're dumb
+
+
+[I have seen the destiny of my neurotype, and am putting forth a convulsive effort to wrench it off its path. My weapon is clear writing.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i8q4vXestDkGTFwsc/human-evil-and-muddled-thinking)
+
+I just don't _know how_ to tell the true tale of personal heartbreak without expressing some degree of disappointment in some people's characters. It is written that ["almost no one is evil; almost everything is broken."](https://blog.jaibot.com/). And [the _first_ step](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uHYYA32CKgKT3FagE/hold-off-on-proposing-solutions) towards fixing that which is broken, is _describing the problem_.)
+
+The "I can define the word 'woman' any way I want" argument is bullshit. All the actually-smart people know that it's bullshit at _some_ level, perhaps semi-consciously buried under a lot of cognitive dissonance. But it's _socially load-bearing_ bullshit that _not only_ does almost no one have an incentive to correct—
+
+But no one has the incentive to correct the mistake in public.
+
+"Some people don't have penises" ... can you be a little more specific?!
+
+politicizing the question of what 2 + 2 should equal
+
+Aumann is an Orthodox Jew
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ovvwAhKKoNbfcMz8K/on-expressing-your-concerns
+
+If my actions (implausibly) represent a PR risk to someone else's Singularity strategy, then they're welcome to try to persuade or negotiate with me.
+
+stroop test
+
+the extent to which I _anticipated_ needing to appeal to personal authority, is indicative of me already not believing in guided-by-the-beauty
+
+I was pretty surprised how well the coinflip post did
+
+speculating that people are lying for political cover may be "uncharitable", but what else can I do when I _can't_ take people seriously?!
+
+https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+whether it's too late for the pebbles to vote https://status451.com/2016/08/10/too-late-for-the-pebbles-to-vote-part-2/
+
+A world that makes sense. A world that's not lying to me.
+
+_(But this time not for you, but just for me—)_
+
+_(Well, no more; I won't beg to buy a shot at your back door)_
+
+_(If I'm aching at the thought of you, what for? That's not me anymore)_
+
+
+The "truth/anti-truth attractors in human psychology" hypothesis feels more plausible when I emphasize the need to cover-up cover-ups as the specific mechanism for anti-truth.
+
+Introspectively, I think I can almost feel the oscillation between "I'm embarrassed and upset about {thing} that I don't want to acknowledge or explain, but that makes me not want to acknowledge or explain the fact that I feel embarrassed an upset" vs. "Yes, {thing} is real; real things are allowed to appear on maps."
+
+----
+
+an implicit don't-ask-don't-tell agreement, where they certainly had clues that something was wrong with me gender-wise, but no one had an incentive to bring it up.
+
+(Contrary to popular belief, it's not exactly ignorance that's bliss, but more generally lack of game-theoretic common knowledge: if they know, and I know that they know, but they don't know that I know that they know, that's often close enough.)
+
+For example, I seem to remember my first pair of breastforms mysteriously disappearing just after the time my mother unilaterally cleaned out my closet. (And a friend not long thereafter reported overhearing her telling his parents that she was pretty sure I wasn't gay.)
+
+my history of email exchanges with the Popular Author being demanding
+
+posting on LW because it's the conversational locus https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8rYxw9xZfwy86jkpG/on-the-importance-of-less-wrong-or-another-single
+
+M.L. Morris "Vocational Interests in the United States" d=1.7 on occupational preferences
+
+playing for scraps vs. playing for keeps https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1151902363059392512
+
+You can't optimize your group's culture for not-talking-about-atheism without also optimizing against understanding Occam's razor; you can't optimize for not questioning gender self-identity without also optimizing against understanding "A Human's Guide to Words."
+
+I didn't not have any reason to _invent the hypotheses_ that I had some undiagnosed brain-intersex condition, or that I was literally a girl in some unspecified metaphysical sense.
+
+Men who wish they were women do not particularly resemble actual women! We just—don't? This seems pretty obvious, really?
+
+[This is something where I _actually need the right answer_]
+
+Ultimately, I think this is a pedagogy decision that Eliezer got right. If you write your summary slogan in relativist language, people predictably take that as license to believe whatever they want without having to defend it. Whereas if you write your summary slogan in objectivist language—so that people know they don't have social permission to say that "it's subjective so I can't be wrong"—then you have some hope of sparking a useful discussion about the exact, precise ways that specific, definite things are, in fact, relative to other specific, definite things.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff