+
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
[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.
+
+
+Great at free speech norms, there's a level above free speech where you _converge on the right answer
+
+(I cried my tears for three good years; you can't be mad at me.)
+
+a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
+
+Technical mistake
+
+_politically load-bearing_ philosophy mistake.
+
+
+https://economicsofgender.tumblr.com/post/188438604772/i-vaguely-remember-learning-trans-women-are : "for a while nobody argued about the truth or implications of 'trans women are women.' It would be like arguing over whether, in fact, the birthday boy really gets the first piece of cake."
+
+
+So, while I have been seeking out a coalition/bandwagon/flag-rally for the past few weeks, I've tried to be pretty explicit about only expecting buy-in for a minimal flag that says, "'I Can Define a Word Any Way I Want' can't be the end of the debate, because choosing to call things different names doesn't change the empirical cluster-structure of bodies and minds in the world; while the same word might legitimately be used with different definitions/extensions in different contexts, the different definitions imply different probabilistic inferences, so banning one definition as hurtful is an epistemic issue that rationalists should notice because it makes it artificially more expensive to express probabilistic inferences that can be expressed concisely with that definition."
+
+I do usually mention the two-types model at the same time because that's where I think the truth is and it's hard to see the Bayes-structure-of-language problem without concrete examples. (Why is it that that only ~3% of women-who-happen-to-be-cis identify as lesbians, but 60% of women-who-happen-to-be-trans do? If you're careful, you can probably find a way to encode the true explanation in a way that doesn't offend anyone. But if you want to be able to point to the truth concisely—in a way that fits in a Tweet, or to an audience that doesn't know probabilistic graphical models—then "Because trans women are men" needs to be sayable. You don't need to say it when it's not relevant or if a non-rationalist who might be hurt by it is in the room, but it can't be unsayable.)
+
+Do I need to be much louder about the "This philosophy-of-language point can be accepted independently of any empirical claims" disclaimer and much quieter about the empirical claims, because literally no one understands disclaimers!?
+
+(I don't think I'd be saying this in the nearby possible world where Scott Siskind didn't have a traumatizing social-justice-shaming experience in college, but it's true here.)
+
+I don't want to fall into the bravery-debate trap of, "Look at me, I'm so heroically persecuted, therefore I'm right (therefore you should have sex with me)."
+
+
+Strongly agree with this. I have some misgivings about the redpilly coalition-seeking I've been doing recently. My hope has been that it's possible to apply just enough "What the fuck kind of rationalist are you?!" social pressure to cancel out the "You don't want to be a Bad (Red) person, do you??" social pressure and thereby let people look at the arguments. I don't know if that actually works.
+
+"Moshe": "People rightly distrust disclaimers and nearly no one except me & Michael can say so instead of acting like it’s common knowledge with people who don’t fully know this."
+
+Standards! https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/contrite-strategies-and-the-need-for-standards/
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067490362225156096
+"The more technology advances, the further we can move people towards where they say they want to be in sexspace. Having said this we've said all the facts. Who competes in sports segregated around an Aristotelian binary is a policy question (that I personally find very humorous)."
+
+_Why_ is it humorous? Because you don't like sports? (["Though, since you never designed your own leg muscles, you are racing using strength that isn't yours. A race between robot cars is a purer contest of their designers."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/29vqqmGNxNRGzffEj/high-challenge))
+
+
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067300728572600320
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1065666629155995648 "The only leaders in the current ecosystem who express any kind of controversial opinion, ever, are organisms that specialize in subsisting on the resource flows produced by expressing that kind of controversial opinion."
+
+https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/14/cancer-research-removes-word-women-smear-campaign-amid-transgender/ "anyone who has a cervix"
+
+A rationality mistake is made that's useful for supporting political agenda X, now no one can ever correct the rationality mistake (even in the most abstract terms with examples about dolphins) for fear of being smeared as anti-X
+
+if THAT is now too politically contentious to affirm in public, we're DEAD
+
+http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/09/concerns-ii/ "you yourself admit that your model won't assign literally all of its probability mass to the exact outcome?!"
+
+"category boundaries" were just a visual metaphor for talking about beliefs? There's a little naive Bayes model in my head with "blueness" and "eggness" observation nodes hooked up to a central "blegg" category-membership node, such that I can use observations to update my beliefs about category-membership, and use my beliefs about category-membership to predict observations. The set of things I'll classify as a blegg with probability greater than p is conveniently visualized as an area with a boundary in blueness–eggness space, but the beliefs are the important thing.
+
+http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/07/concerns/
+
+(I'm avoiding naming anyone in this post even when linking to their public writings, in order to try to keep the _rhetorical emphasis_ on "true tale of personal heartbreak, coupled with sober analysis of the sociopolitical factors leading thereto" even while I'm expressing disappointment with people's performance. This isn't supposed to be character/reputation attack on my friends and intellectual heroes—I just _need to tell the story_ about why I've been crazy all year so that I can stop grieving and _move on_.)
+
+"Don't Revere the Bearer of Good Info"
+
+casuistry
+
+Eliezer's NRx 2013 vs. 2019 takes
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff