check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / i-tell-myself-sections.md

diff --git a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
index 2eb1b21..6842bad 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
+++ b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
@@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ https://medium.com/@barrakerr/pronouns-are-rohypnol-dbcd1cb9c2d9
 
 ----
 
-
 [...]
 
 MASSIVE cognitive dissonance, "What? What???"
@@ -49,10 +48,6 @@ Humans are _pretty good_ at noticing each other's sex. In one study, subjects we
 
 [^face]: Vicki Bruce, A. Mike Burton, _et al._, ["Sex discrimination: how do we tell the difference between male and female faces?"](/papers/bruce_et_al-sex_discrimination_how_do_we_tell.pdf), _Perception_, Vol 22, Issue 2 (1993)
 
------
-
-[Insert this after first mention of Great Teacher/Popular Author]
-
 ------
 
 [happy price, symmetry-breaking]
@@ -71,7 +66,7 @@ The Popular Author
 
 https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/
 
-> And the more perceptive and truth-seeking these people are, the more likely they’ll speak, say “Hey, I think we’ve got the lightning thing wrong” and not shut up about it, and society will have to destroy them.
+> And the more perceptive and truth-seeking these people are, the more likely they’ll speak, say "Hey, I think we’ve got the lightning thing wrong" and not shut up about it, and society will have to destroy them.
 
 Have to?!
 
@@ -79,7 +74,7 @@ The Popular Author obviously never wanted to be the center of a personality cult
 
 -----
 
-In sexually-reproducing species, [complex functional adaptations in are necessarily species-universal _up to sex_](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Cyj6wQLW6SeF6aGLy/the-psychological-unity-of-humankind), because adaptations have to evolve incrementally: you don't have selection pressure for an allele for a ever-so-slightly-improved eye, until all the pieces for the unimproved eye are already at fixation and won't get immediately [reshuffled during meiosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) in the next generation.
+In sexually-reproducing species, [complex functional adaptations in are necessarily species-universal _up to sex_](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Cyj6wQLW6SeF6aGLy/the-psychological-unity-of-humankind), because adaptations have to evolve incrementally: you don't have selection pressure for an allele for a ever-so-slightly-improved kidney, until all the pieces for the unimproved kidney are already at fixation and won't get immediately [reshuffled during meiosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) in the next generation.
 
 (That is: evolutionary psychology is impressively anti-racist, but _super_ sexist.)
 
@@ -135,6 +130,7 @@ acknowleding my complicity:
 ----
 
 [leaning on "Travis" for social proof]
+[the _astonishing_ regularity in which people will privately agree with my philosophy, but diss my coalition]
 
 ----
 
@@ -150,4 +146,8 @@ Social norms that require claims to be made as "I" statements are adapted for _m
 
 ----
 
-[the _astonishing_ regularity in which people will privately agree with my philosophy, but diss my coalition]
+This post has been incredibly emotionally difficult to write, because intellectual discourse _shouldn't_ be personal _or_ political. It's easy to write posts of the form, "Smith argues that X, but actually, not-X, because ..." and it doesn't hurt because it's not about Smith or the social pressures acting on her, it's about the balance of evidence and structure of the arguments for and against X. It's only when argument _fails_ and yet you [still have Something to Protect](/2019/Jul/the-source-of-our-power/), that your last recourse is to jump to the meta level and say, 
+
+------
+
+[Dark Side Epistemology]
\ No newline at end of file