tie off "Useful Approximation" draft

I'm not sure how I want to do the quantitative modeling part. Maybe it
doesn't need to be in this post? I'll email Tail with the draft, and
my amusing observation about prior and likelihood canceling, and let
him judge me.

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
index a18dc4a..8962224 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
+++ b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
@@ -68,19 +68,6 @@ Ultimately, the reader cannot abdicate responsibility to think it through and de
 
 The femininity→transition arrow is obvious. The sexual orientation→femininity arrow (representing the fact that gay men are more feminine than straight men), besides being stereotypical folk knowledge, has also been extensively documented, for example by [Lippa](/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf) and by [Bailey and Zucker](/papers/bailey-zucker-childhood_sex-typed_behavior_and_sexual_orientation.pdf). The v-structure between sexual orientation, erotic target location erroneousness, and autogynephilia has been [documented by Anne Lawrence](/papers/lawrence-etle_an_underappreciated.pdf): furries and amputee-wannabes who want to emulate the objects of their attraction, "look like" "the same thing" as autogynephiles, but pointed at a less conventional erotic than women. The autogynephilia–transition concordance has been documented by many authors, and I claim the direction of causality is obvious. (If you want to argue that it goes the other way—that some underlying "gender identity" causes both autogynephilia and, separately, the desire to transition, then why does it usually not work that way for androphiles?) The cultural-factors→transition arrow is obvious if you haven't been living under a rock for the last decade.
 
 
 The femininity→transition arrow is obvious. The sexual orientation→femininity arrow (representing the fact that gay men are more feminine than straight men), besides being stereotypical folk knowledge, has also been extensively documented, for example by [Lippa](/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf) and by [Bailey and Zucker](/papers/bailey-zucker-childhood_sex-typed_behavior_and_sexual_orientation.pdf). The v-structure between sexual orientation, erotic target location erroneousness, and autogynephilia has been [documented by Anne Lawrence](/papers/lawrence-etle_an_underappreciated.pdf): furries and amputee-wannabes who want to emulate the objects of their attraction, "look like" "the same thing" as autogynephiles, but pointed at a less conventional erotic than women. The autogynephilia–transition concordance has been documented by many authors, and I claim the direction of causality is obvious. (If you want to argue that it goes the other way—that some underlying "gender identity" causes both autogynephilia and, separately, the desire to transition, then why does it usually not work that way for androphiles?) The cultural-factors→transition arrow is obvious if you haven't been living under a rock for the last decade.
 

-This has been a qualitative summary of my current thinking. I'm very bullish on thinking in graphical models rather than discrete taxons being the way to go, but it would be a lot more work to try to pin down all these claims rigorously—or, to the extent that my graph is wrong, to figure out the correct (or, _a_ more correct, less wrong) graph instead. But as a gesture of _aspiration towards_ more rigor, we can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations to try to show how a "two types" could emerge quantitatively.
-
-
-[quantifying the two-type effect:
-GD occupations in study 2
-gay men are at .48 (.14); straight women at .36 (.13); straight men at .68 (.12)
-that's d=–1.61 between gay and straight men
-a gay man only needs to be 1 standard deviation (.48-.36 = 0.12) more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight women
-whereas a straight man needs to be (.68-.36 = 0.32) 0.32/0.12=2.67 more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight woman—that's rarer, but not impossible
-
-In percentile terms, 1-norm.cdf(1) = 0.15 of gay men are as feminine as a woman
-whereas 1-norm.cdf(2.67) = 0.003 of straight men are
-that's a likelihood ratio of 50 ... but the prior is not that far from 50:1 in the other direction! They cancel out!!]
-
+This has been a qualitative summary of my current thinking. I'm very bullish on thinking in graphical models rather than discrete taxons being the way to go, but it would be a lot more work to try to pin down all these claims rigorously—or, to the extent that my graph is wrong, to figure out the correct (or, _a_ more correct, less wrong) graph instead.

 
 _(Thanks to the immortal [Tailcalled](https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/) for discussion.)_
 
 _(Thanks to the immortal [Tailcalled](https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/) for discussion.)_

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index 9a6dde1..98df905 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -3164,3 +3164,14 @@ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/the-invention-of-the-trans-novel-i
 
 preference cascade is starting ...
 https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1538541182975877120
 
 preference cascade is starting ...
 https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1538541182975877120

+
+[quantifying the two-type effect:
+GD occupations in study 2
+gay men are at .48 (.14); straight women at .36 (.13); straight men at .68 (.12)
+that's d=–1.61 between gay and straight men
+a gay man only needs to be 1 standard deviation (.48-.36 = 0.12) more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight women
+whereas a straight man needs to be (.68-.36 = 0.32) 0.32/0.12=2.67 more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight woman—that's rarer, but not impossible
+
+In percentile terms, 1-norm.cdf(1) = 0.15 of gay men are as feminine as a woman
+whereas 1-norm.cdf(2.67) = 0.003 of straight men are
+that's a likelihood ratio of 50 ... but the prior is not that far from 50:1 in the other direction! They cancel out!!]