-(I normally eschew the use of boldface in prose, but as a strategic concession to people's lack of reading comprehension, I'll be bolding key sentences that I fear people would otherwise fail to process and misunderstand my position as a result.)
+(I typically eschew the use of boldface in prose, but as a strategic concession to people's lack of reading comprehension, I'll be bolding key sentences that I fear people would otherwise fail to process and misunderstand my position as a result.)
+
+---
+
+**Almost everything I do is at least one meta level up from any actual decisions.**
----
In the comments, [I wrote](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions/comment/4pttT7gQYLpfqCsNd)—
-> Is it cheating if you deliberately define your personal identity such that the answer is No?
+> Is it cheating if you deliberately define your personal identity such that the answer is _No_?
-To which I now realize the correct answer is: _Yes_, it's cheating! The map is not the territory!
+To which I now realize the correct answer is: Yes, it's fucking cheating! The map is not the territory! You can't change the current _referent_ of "personal identity" with the semantic mind game of declaring that "personal identity" now refers to something else! How dumb do you think we are?! (But more on this later.)
-----
The fact that I can't _talk about the world I see_ in the simple language that comes naturally to me without it inevitably being construed as a reactionary political statement is a _problem_. And it's a _rationality_ problem insofar as the world I see is potentially a more accurate model of the real world, than the world I'm allowed to talk about.
-I can be polite in most circumstances, as the price of keeping the peace in Society. But it is a price, a cost—and it's a _cognitive_ cost, the cost of _destroying information_ that would make people uncomfortable. Systematically correct reasoners needn't _mention_ the cost in most circumstances (that would not be polite), but we should at least be able to refrain from clever not-technically-lying sophistries engineered to _make it look like there's no cost_.
+I can be polite in most circumstances, as the price of keeping the peace in Society. But it is a price, a cost—and it's a _cognitive_ cost, the cost of _destroying information_ that would make people uncomfortable. Systematically correct reasoners needn't _mention_ the cost in most circumstances (that would not be polite), but we should at least be able to refrain from indulging in clever not-technically-lying sophistry that tries to _make it look like there's no cost_.
-----
If we _actually had_ the magical sex change technology described in "Changing Emotions", no one would even be _tempted_ to invent these category-gerrymandering mind games.
-If it cost $200K, I would just take out a bank loan and _do it_.
+If it cost $200K, I would just take out a bank loan and _do it_.
+
+Not because I like my voice, but because
-----
The Popular Author
"People started threatening to use my bad reputation to discredit the communities I was in and the causes I cared about most."
+
+----
+
+[wireheading and war are the only two reasons to]
+
+-----
+
+[psychological unity of humankind and sex]
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Cyj6wQLW6SeF6aGLy/the-psychological-unity-of-humankind
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff