X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=content%2Fdrafts%2Freply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md;fp=content%2Fdrafts%2Freply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md;h=676e45efe89bde6e680cc92d999dbf97eac8170c;hp=52cd2a384b658933e68806151d5c6ca6c586593b;hb=269aed94b6488cf7e10058bf34f67dc57ff77373;hpb=a2f834641c920e788c881ebe61e5a7c7d3aa9e82

diff --git a/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md b/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md
index 52cd2a3..676e45e 100644
--- a/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md
+++ b/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md
@@ -145,3 +145,14 @@ Even if it were _true_ that the late-onset type were caused by some
 You point to your survey data saying that cis gay men are autoandrophilic as something Blanchard–Bailey–Lawrence can't explain, but I don't see my theory as being particularly committed to making predictions about how gay men will answer the "Picture a very attractive man [...]" question. It's a different population!
 
 I would totally respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality; I can't expect everyone to share my parsimony intuitions. But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"! I just don't think that's something you can possibly conclude based on how _other populations_ are answering similar survey questions!
+
+
+> We have a debate every year over whether 50% predictions are meaningful in this paradigm; feel free to continue it.
+
+Someone reading this who trusted Alexander as a general-purpose intellectual authority ("the best of us", the "rationalists") might walk away with the idea that it's an open problem whether 50% binary predictions are meaningful—perhaps reasoning, if the immortal Scott Alexander doesn't know, then who am I to know?
+
+But it's not. On this website, [Rafael Harth explains why 50% isn't special](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DAc4iuy4D3EiNBt9B/how-to-evaluate-50-predictions). I claim that this should actually be pretty obvious to competent quantitative thinkers, even if it's not obvious to the collective _SSC_/_ACX_ commentariat, and Alexander can't tell which of his commenters are competent quantitative thinkers.
+
+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!)