* if part of the resistacne to an honest cost/benefit analysis is
+* reasonable vs. unreasonable misunderstandings
+
+
* what did I expect, taking on an egregore so much bigger than me?
* if I agree that people should be allowed to transition, why am I freaking out? Because I _actually care about getting the theory correct_
* culture matters: if you're surrounded by crazy people
(["_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))
-
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"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.
chapter and verse
+I will try to be less silly about "my thing is actually important for the world" claims, when what I really mean is that I'm just not a consequentialist about speech
+
+"Outside the Laboratory" dumbness could be selection rather than causal
+
+I don't expect anyone to take a stand for a taboo topic that they don't care about
+I would have expected Scott and/or Eliezer to help clarify the philosophy-of-language mistake, because that's core sequences material
+but I was wrong
+
+I was imagining that it should be safe to endorse my "... Boundaries?" post, because the post is about philosophy, and surely it should be possible to endorse a specific article without that being taken as an endorsement of the author
+but ... I guess that's not how politics works
+
+They can't _trust_ me not to leverage consensus on the categories-aren't-arbitrary for my object-level thing, in a way that would go on RationalWiki and SneerClub
+
+The counterargument that Dark Side Epistemology isn't that recursive
+
+-----
+
+I would _never_ write someone off for disagreeing with me about a complicated empirical question in psychology. Psychology is _really complicated_—and psychology questions that impinge on hot-button culture war issues are subject to additional biasing pressures. In this domain, no matter how "obvious" I think something is, I have to [take the Outside View seriously](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/beware-the-insi.html) and
+
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/15/my-id-on-defensiveness/
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/ Popular Author is very tired
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/
+
+Savvy people have an incentive to stonewall me until I give up and go away, and on any other subject where I didn't have Something to Protect, it would have _worked_
+
+Lying or gerrymandering an individual object-level category boundary is forgivable; constructing a clever philosophical argument that lying is OK, is not
+
+Another kind of asymmetric weapon: whether this narrative "looks worse" for me or my subjects depends on the audience (you can read it as a tale of betrayal of sacred principles, or a tale of personal mental illness)
+
+https://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Lurkers_Support_Me_in_Email
+
+still cited: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/d178n2/the_categories_were_made_for_man_not_man_for_the/
+
+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 (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%"
+
+rhetorical superweapon: https://archive.is/6WGbk
+
+"If I'm aching at the thought of them, what for? That's not me anymore."
+
+"And I'm not the girl that I intend to be."
+
+AGP blogging: "Somebody has to and noone else will."
+
+notice the symmetry where _both_ E and I want to partition the discussion with "That's a policy question" ... I just think it's unfair to partition after "words don't have intrinsic defn's" rather than 37 ways
+
+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?!
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff