Presidential doldrums

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-notes.md

diff --git a/notes/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-notes.md b/notes/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-notes.md
index 48a75f0..293aa26 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-notes.md
+++ b/notes/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-notes.md
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+Sections I should be able to easily make progress-per-minute on—
+* Ideology is not the Movement
+* Dr. Will Powers
+* I Don't Do Policy
+* Cara's Egregore
+* Scott Alexander Understands Language
+* Moral Error and Moral Disagreement
+
+
 Points to work in—
 
 * wipe culturally defined values: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/BkkwXtaTf5LvbA6HB/moral-error-and-moral-disagreement (this might have to go after Failed-Utopia #4-2)
@@ -5,9 +14,9 @@ Points to work in—
 * the moment in October 2016 when I switched sides http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/10/late-onset/ http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2017/03/brand-rust/
 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jNAAZ9XNyt82CXosr/mirrors-and-paintings
 
-* explain the Singularity/paperclip terminology before use
- 
-* the literature talks about crossdressing a lot, but I mostly just fantasize; dress-up isn't really convincing
+Terminology to explain before use—
+* Singularity/paperclip
+* "non-exclusively androphilic" / nonhomosexual
 
 * not a theory of trans men
 
@@ -42,10 +51,6 @@ What happens when every sensitive bookish male who thinks [it might be cool to b
 
 Anne Lawrence described autogynephiles as ["men who love women and want to become what they love."](/papers/lawrence-becoming_what_we_love.pdf) But it's worse than that. We're men who love what we _wish_ women were, and want to become _that_.
 
-
-
-* "The Opposite Sex" 
-
 * EY was right about "men need to think about themselves _as men_" (find cite)
 
 * Superhappies empathic inference for not wanting to believe girls were different
@@ -426,3 +431,14 @@ Reading the things I do, and talking to the people I do, I see this pattern _ove
 All I've been trying to say is that, _in particular_, the word "woman" is such a noun.
 
 It _follows logically_ that, in particular, if _N_ := "woman", you can't define the word _woman_ any way you want. Maybe trans women _are_ women! But if you want people to agree to that word usage, you need to be able to _argue_ for why it makes sense; you can't just _define_ it to be true, and this is a _general_ principle of how language works, not something I made up on the spot in order to stigmatize trans people.
+
+> Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM
+> So Katie and Seanan did end up coming over last night, but I wasn't very fun to be around because I was emotionally floored because Michael Vassar (!) said that something I said in an _Overcoming Bias_ comment thread was really creepy and that his first reaction was that I should be banned. And I remember lying in bed last night or this morning feeling sick about it, and trying to think about something not thematic, so that I could relax--and I couldn't think of anything.
+
+> But Vassar had a point, and I apologized, and I feel better now.
+
+> So I am broken and I have made terrible mistakes, but in my rationalist's splendor, all I can do is try to understand the facts of the matter and do better tomorrow. This, even as in my rationalist's splendor, I must predict that this is unlikely to actually work.
+
+> Michael fucking Vassar. Shit!
+
+I'm worried about the failure mode where bright young minds [lured in](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/construction-beacons/) by the beautiful propaganda about _systematically correct reasoning_, are instead recruited into what is, effectively, the Eliezer-Yudkowsky-and-Scott-Alexander fan club.
\ No newline at end of file