X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fa-hill-of-validity-sections.md;h=3c64573a21e86ec029ce42b578a475ab0b38be11;hp=bda48db11283a73860de48b24df726f4a98c904b;hb=b20ecc2958895d159f6923322375aeece933c69a;hpb=a411c533d779ad79bc35700a7f017e63e4f282d3 diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md index bda48db..3c64573 100644 --- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md +++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _ more examples of Yudkowsky's arrogance _ "The Correct Contrarian Cluster" and race/IQ _ taqiyya _ refusing to give a probability (When Not to Use Probabilities? Shut Up and Do the Impossible?) +_ retrieve comment on pseudo-lies post in which he says its OK for me to comment even though far editing tier— @@ -817,7 +818,13 @@ The HEXACO personality model considers "honesty" and "humility" a single factor —and would be unforgivable if it weren't so _inexplicable_. -... not _actually_ inexplicable. There was, in fact, an obvious explanation: that Yudkowsky was trying to bolster his reputation amongst progressives by positioning himself on the right side of history, and was tailoring a fake rationality lesson to suit that goal. But _Eliezer Yudkowsky wouldn't do that_. I had to assume this was a honest mistake. +... not _actually_ inexplicable. There was, in fact, an obvious explanation: that + + +Yudkowsky was trying to bolster his reputation amongst progressives by positioning himself on the right side of history, and was tailoring a fake rationality lesson to suit that goal. + + +But _Eliezer Yudkowsky wouldn't do that_. I had to assume this was a honest mistake. At least, a _pedagogy_ mistake. If Yudkowsky _just_ wanted to make a politically neutral technical point about the difference between fact-claims and policy claims _without_ "picking a side" in the broader cultural war dispute, these Tweets did a very poor job of it. I of course agree that pronoun usage conventions, and conventions about who uses what bathroom, are not, themselves, factual assertions about sex chromosomes in particular. I'm not saying that Yudkowsky made a false statement there. Rather, I'm saying that it's @@ -838,9 +845,11 @@ https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-lia-thomas-birth-certificates Z ] -Writing out this criticism now, the situation doesn't feel _confusing_, anymore. Yudkowsky was very obviously being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives. That's a thing that public intellectuals do. And, again, I agree that the distinction between facts and policy decisions _is_ a valid one, even if I thought it was being selectively invoked here as an [isolated demand for rigor](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/) because of the political context. Coming from _anyone else in the world_, I would have considered the thread fine—a solidly above-average performance, really. I wouldn't have felt confused or betrayed at all. Coming from Eliezer Yudkowsky, it was—confusing. +Writing out this criticism now, the situation doesn't feel _confusing_, anymore. Yudkowsky was very obviously being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives. That's a thing that public intellectuals do. And, again, I agree that the distinction between facts and policy decisions _is_ a valid one, even if I thought it was being selectively invoked here as an [isolated demand for rigor](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/) because of the political context. Coming from _anyone else in the world_, I would have considered the thread fine—a solidly above-average performance, -Because of my hero worship, "he's being intellectually dishonest in response to very obvious political incentives" wasn't in my hypothesis space; I _had_ to assume the thread was an "honest mistake" in his rationality lessons, rather than (what it actually was, what it _obviously_ actually was) hostile political action. +really. I wouldn't have felt confused or betrayed at all. Coming from Eliezer Yudkowsky, it was—confusing. + +Because of my hero worship, > People probably change their mind more often than they explicitly concede arguments, which is fine because intellectual progress is more important than people who were wrong performing submission. @@ -857,10 +866,6 @@ My 28 November 2018 text to Michael— I remember going downstairs to impulsively confide in a senior engineer, an older bald guy who exuded masculinity, who you could tell by his entire manner and being was not infected by the Berkeley mind-virus, no matter how loyally he voted Democrat—not just about the immediate impetus of this Twitter thread, but this whole _thing_ of the past couple years where my entire social circle just suddenly decided that guys like me could be women by means of saying so. He was sympathetic. -[TODO: paraphrase remaining interaction with Scott, or not worth the space? - -> I don't have a simple, mistake-theoretic characterization of the language and social conventions that everyone should use such that anyone who defected from the compromise would be wrong. The best I can do is try to objectively predict the consequences of different possible conventions—and of conflicts over possible conventions. - helping Norton live in the real world Scott says, "It seems to me pretty obvious that the mental health benefits to trans people are enough to tip the object-level first-pass uilitarian calculus."; I don't think _anything_ about "mental health benefits to trans people" is obvious @@ -889,9 +894,6 @@ The McGongall turning into a cat parody may actually be worth fitting in—McCon Michael on EA suppressing credible criticism https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1559534045914177538 -"epistemic hero" -https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584 - zinger from 93— > who present "this empirical claim is inconsistent with the basic tenets of my philosophy" as an argument against the _claim_ @@ -1182,7 +1184,7 @@ If you _don't_ have intent-to-inform, but make sure to never, ever say false thi ---- -comment on pseudo-lies post in which he says its OK for me to comment even though + bitter comments about rationalists— https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/qXwmMkEBLL59NkvYR/the-lesswrong-2018-review-posts-need-at-least-2-nominations/comment/d4RrEizzH85BdCPhE @@ -1200,6 +1202,9 @@ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts?commen Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts +"epistemic hero" +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584 + https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1434906470248636419 > Anyways, Scott, this is just the usual division of labor in our caliphate: we're both always right, but you cater to the crowd that wants to hear it from somebody too modest to admit that, and I cater to the crowd that wants somebody out of that closet.