-near editing tier—
-✓ scan through "far editing tier" list and scoot anything applicable to the near editing tier
-✓ explain that "A Human's Guide to Words" / 37 Ways are the same text
-✓ explain the title
-✓ happy price subject line in pt. 1
-✓ incentives of gatekeeping and system-mandated lies
-✓ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era
-✓ smooth out "still had his email" callback
-✓ better summary of Littman
-✓ clarify that I'm not a sex work prohibitionist
-✓ Autoheterosexual as secondary literature
-
-_ scan through pt. 1½ and extract highlights to include in pt. 1–6
-
-_ say more about why omit pt. 1½
-_ "Margaret" discussion needs to cover the part where I'd cause less disruption if I transitioned
-_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language
-_ the function of privacy norms is to protect you from people who want to selectively reveal information to hurt you, so it makes sense that I'm particularly careful about Yudkowsky's privacy and not Scott's, because I totally am trying to hurt Yudkowsky (this also protects me from the charge that by granting more privacy to Yudkowsky than Scott, I'm implying that Yudkowsky said something more incriminating; the difference in treatment is about _me_ and my expectations, rather than what they may or may not have said when I tried emailing them); I want it to be clear that I'm attacking him but not betraying him
-_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it
-_ so embarrassed after the Singularity
-_ Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake
-_ mention HRT pause / stop in pt. 1 end
-------
-_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
-_ pt. 1 end needs to mention BABSCon (back referenced)
-_ born five years too early
-_ you didn't do a good job explaining to me why someone would think that being bullied into selective silence doesn't constitute a conflict strategy
-_ psych ward vs. psych hospital
-_ "A Hill": I claim that I'm not doing much psychologizing because implausible to be simultaenously savvy enough to say this, and naive enough to not be doing so knowingly
-_ running away to Burlingame; Hamilton tickets
-_ "counterfactual boyfriend"/It's California in the year 2016??
-_ "people with fragile identities" dialogue doesn't fit the flow, probably cut or move
-_ get exact dates and correct Sequencing on late 2016 conversations
-_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
-_ re Persongen, footnote or sentences about how I knew I was wrong to use naïve-Bayes on facets, but I didn't know what was right
-_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
-_ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread
-_ better explanation of posse formation
-_ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake
-
-
-
-people to consult specifically before pt. 1–3:
-sent, need approval for pt. 1-2—
-✓ Tail (AGP discussion)
-✓ Anna
-✓ Ben/Jessica (Michael)
-✓ "Riley"
-✓ Scott
-- professional editor
-- "Thomas"
-- "Rebecca"
-- Sarah
-
-to send (Discord)—
-_ Alicorn
-
-to write—
-_ Sophia
-_ "Margaret"
-
-
-----------------
-
_ "Lenore" psychiatric disaster
- Eliezerfic fight conclusion
_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
_ plan to reach out to Rick
-
- regrets, wasted time, conclusion
-
_ reaction to Ziz
_ State of Steven
_ culture off the rails; my warning points to Vaniver
------
With internet available—
-_ define ersatz
-_ link to my Facebook post for Coming Out Day
-_ "All You Zombies"
-_ links to PA hospitals
-_ link to my Facebook posts on Azkaban, prematuring conceding the bet, and correcting the bet record
-_ what did the comments on my Pittsburg/Azkaban post say?
-_ check that the Feb. Blanchard Tweet is the one with the screenshot-quote
-_ link to Kevin Hsu and James Cantor
_ Is http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/be-a-charity-angel.html the best link for after-the-fact prize funding?
_ P(doom)
_ Michael on OB in 'aught-eight on smart kids internalizing rules meant for the norm of reaction of a dumber population
_ double-check EnyeWord in archive.is?
_ Eliezerfic fight: where did the super-AIDS example fit in cronologically?
_ Keltham/Peranza exam answer should link specific tags
-_ Susan Fenimore Cooper
_ IQ 143 cite
_ double-check "the mood I thought dath ilan was missing" link target
_ double-check "the power that could not be removed" quote
_ the "outright bad faith" clause in "Your Price for Joining"
_ "Riley" pointing out that it worked better because it was Oli
_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
+_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
+_ born five years too early
+_ you didn't do a good job explaining to me why someone would think that being bullied into selective silence doesn't constitute a conflict strategy
+_ "counterfactual boyfriend"/It's California in the year 2016??
+_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
+_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
_ update "karma at press time"
_ better explain "lie inflation" ambiguity
_ Facing Reality
> No I think there's a case for this approach. Like you see the argument for why you might want to be laboriously fair to Yud because it's important that no one dismiss your complaints on the grounds of "I dunno, doesn't seem fair enough for me".
> Whereas doing that for every random person you mention would be a lot of work.
-
I never got an answer to why it was wrong for me to talk to Scott!! And the contradiction between that, and Ben's emphasis on privacy being unjust!
It would have been a lot simpler if you could _just_ make object-level criticisms: "'yelling' is a tendentious description, from our perspective we were arguing passionately"—rather than first
If someone ran over a pedestrian in their car, at the trial you would actually argue about how culpable they are (if they were drunk, it would be worse than if it could be proven to be a freak accident), and "The victim is so much worse off than you!!" isn't actually an argument relevant to determination of culpability
+
+
+When I mentioned re-reading Moldbug on "ignoble privilege", "Thomas" said that it was a reason not to feel the need to seek the approval of women, who had not been ennobled by living in an astroturfed world where the traditional (_i.e._, evolutionarily stable) strategies of relating had been relabeled as oppression. The chip-on-her-shoulder effect was amplified in androgynous women. (Unfortunately, the sort of women I particularly liked.)
+
+He advised me that if I did find an androgynous woman I was into, I shouldn't treat her as a moral authority. Doing what most sensitive men thought of as equality degenerated into female moral superiority, which wrecks the relationship in a feedback loop of testing and resentment. (Women want to win arguments in the moment, but don't actually want to lead the relationship.) Thus, a strange conclusion: to have an egalitarian heterosexual relationship, the man needs to lead the relationship _into_ equality; a dab of patriarchy works better than none.
+
+https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-we-fear-ai-james-w-phillips-and-eliezer-yudkowsky-in-conversation/
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1680166329209466881
+> I am increasingly worried about what people start to believe in after they stop believing in Me
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1683659276471115776
+> from a contradiction one may derive anything, and this is especially true of contradicting Eliezer Yudkowsky
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1683694475644923904
+> I don't do that sort of ridiculous drama for the same reason that Truman didn't like it. I don't have that kind of need to be at the center of the story, that I'd try to make the disaster be about myself.
+
+
+
+------
+
+I'm thinking that for controversial writing, it's not enough to get your friends to pre-read, and it's not enough to hire a pro editor, you probably also need to hire a designated "hostile prereader"
+
+
+
+--------
+
+[revision comment]
+
+The fifth- through second-to-last paragraphs of the originally published version of this post were bad writing on my part.
+
+I was summarizing things Ben said at the time that felt like an important part of the story, without adequately
+
+I've rewritten that passage. Hopefully this version is clearer.
+
+---------
+
+[reply to Wei]
+
+
+----------
+
+Ben explained: Yudkowsky had set in motion a marketing machine (the "rationalist community") that was continuing to raise funds and demand work from people for below-market rates based on the claim that while nearly everyone else was criminally insane (causing huge amounts of damage due to disconnect from reality, in a way that would be criminal if done knowingly), he, almost uniquely, was not. "Work for me or the world ends badly," basically. If the claim was true, it was important to make, and to actually extract that labor.
+
+But we had just falsified to our satisfaction the claim that Yudkowsky was currently sane in the relevant way (which was a extremely high standard, and not a special flaw of Yudkowsky in the current environment). If, after we had _tried_ to talk to him privately, Yudkowsky couldn't be bothered to either live up to his own stated standards or withdraw his validation from the machine he built, then we had a right to talk about what we thought was going on.
+
+This wasn't about direct benefit _vs._ harm. This was about what, substantively, the machine and its operators were doing. They claimed to be cultivating an epistemically rational community, while in fact building an army of loyalists.
+
+Ben compared the whole set-up to that of Eliza the spambot therapist in my short story ["Blame Me for Trying"](/2018/Jan/blame-me-for-trying/): regardless of the initial intent, scrupulous rationalists were paying rent to something claiming moral authority, which had no concrete specific plan to do anything other than run out the clock, maintaining a facsimile of dialogue in ways well-calibrated to continue to generate revenue. Minds like mine wouldn't survive long-term in this ecosystem. If we wanted minds that do "naïve" inquiry (instead of playing savvy power games) to live, we needed an interior that justified that level of trust.
+
+-----
+
+I mostly kept him blocked on Twitter (except when doing research for this document) to curb the temptation to pick fights, but I unblocked him in July 2023 because it was only fair to let him namesearch my promotional Tweet of pt. 2, which named him. I then ended up replying to a thread with him and Perry Metzinger, but only because I was providing relevant information, similar to how I had left a few "Less Wrong reference desk"-style messages in Eliezerfic in 2023
+
+it got 16 Likes
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1682100362357121025
+
+I miss this Yudkowsky—
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgrvvp9QzjiFuYwLi/high-status-and-stupidity-why
+> I try in general to avoid sending my brain signals which tell it that I am high-status, just in case that causes my brain to decide it is no longer necessary. In fact I try to avoid sending my brain signals which tell it that I have achieved acceptance in my tribe. When my brain begins thinking something that generates a sense of high status within the tribe, I stop thinking that thought.
+
+----
+
+I thought I should have avoided the 2022 Valinor party to avoid running into him, but I did end up treating him in a personality-cultish way when I was actually there
+
+"Ideology is not the movement" had specifically listed trans as a shibboleth
+
+https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1684947017502433281
+> Keir Starmer agrees that a woman is an adult human female. Will Ed Davey also rejoin the real world, science & the English language by reversing his view that a woman can "quite clearly" have a penis? Inability to face reality in small things bodes ill for more serious matters.
+
+Analysis of my writing mistake (show this to Jackie!!)
+https://twitter.com/shroomwaview/status/1681742799052341249
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff