I don't particularly fault Scott for this: [by his own admission, he's not a math guy](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/). (And the vast majority of math people can't write as well or as fast as Scott. No one is the best at everything!) Rather, I'm saying that a culture that wants to _actually_ be right about everything would do better to _just_ focus on being right on the object level, without [wireheading on its own promises of being right about everything](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-recommending/).
(Incidentally, Scott himself is actually very good about [not trying to claim more authority than is actually justified by his performance](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/). His fans should try to be more like him along this dimension!)
+
+https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/
+
+https://www.facebook.com/zmdavis/posts/10156642447060199
+Is there a named TV Trope for "one of our heroes seemingly betrays their comrades, but later turns out to have reasons to behave as they did (e.g., a secret undercover mission, or they were being extorted) even though they were prevented from explaining at the time" scenarios?
+Okay. Now what do you call it when one of our heroes EXPLAINS CLEARLY AND AT LENGTH the reasons for their actions, but their comrades still regard it as a betrayal because they just refuse to follow the argument?
+
+https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/three-little-pronouns-go-to-court
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff