> Unnerby started to make some weak excuse, stopped. He just couldn't pretend anymore. Besides, Sherkaner was so much easier to face than the General. "You know why I didn't come before, Sherk. In fact, I wouldn't be here now if General Smith hadn't given me explicit orders. I'd follow her through Hell, you know that. But she wants more. She wants acceptance of your perversions. I—You two have such beautiful children, Sherk. How could you do such a thing to them?"
-Underhill is resolute, convinced that Society's prejudices can be overcome after they are shown to be irrational. The children host a "Children's Hour of Science" radio program, without their oophase status being public knowledge at first. Underhill hopes the program will help normalize oophase people when the stars' ages eventually leak.
+Underhill is resolute, convinced that Society's prejudices can be overcome after they are shown to be irrational. (The fact that one of the children, Brent, is intellectually challenged, doesn't faze him; that could be a coincidence.) The children host a "Children's Hour of Science" radio program, without their oophase status being public knowledge at first. Underhill hopes the program will help normalize oophase people when the stars' ages eventually leak.
During a crisis in which the children have been kidnapped by agents of a foreign power, Smith blows up at Unnerby when he makes some tone-deaf remarks. "For years you've pretended to be a friend, but always sneering and hating us. Enough!" she cries out, striking him. She continues to hold a grudge against him for years.
-Smith and Unnerby eventually meet again as the sun is growing cold. Unnerby feels the unease of people being awake this long into the Dark, and senses the same in Smith. "You feel the same as I do about it, don't you?" he asks her.
+Smith and Unnerby eventually meet again as the sun is growing cold. Unnerby feels the unease of people being awake this long into the Dark, and senses the same in Smith. "You feel the same as I do about it, don't you?" he asks her. She reluctantly concedes this, and notes that their Society is running up against a lot of instinct.
-[TODO—
- * one of the children, Brent, is intellectually challenged
-]
+[TODO— how do I want to tie this off??
Every improvement is a necessarily a change, but _not every change is an improvement_.
+
+]
\ No newline at end of file
>
> —[Steven Kaas](https://twitter.com/stevenkaas/status/148884531917766656)
-Explaining my view in a way that I think you'll understand turns out to be a surprisingly challenging writing task, because I suspect my actual crux comes down to a [Science _vs._ Bayescraft](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/viPPjojmChxLGPE2v/the-dilemma-science-or-bayes) thing, where I'm self-conscious about my answer [sounding weirdly overconfident on non-empirical grounds](https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/01/11/reality-is-very-weird-and-you-need-to-be-prepared-for-that/) to someone who doesn't already share my parsimony intuitions—but, frankly, I also expect my parsiony intuitions to actually get the right answer in the real world, and modesty/[Outside View](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FsfnDfADftGDYeG4c/outside-view-as-conversation-halter)/[Caution on Bias Arguments](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/17/caution-on-bias-arguments/) to get the wrong answer. So, self-consciousness aside, here goes—
+In ["Autogenderphilia Is Common And Not Especially Related To Transgender"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/10/autogenderphilia-is-common-and-not-especially-related-to-transgender/), Scott Alexander, based on his eyeballing data from the 2020 _Slate Star Codex_ reader survey, proposes what he calls a "very boring" hypothesis of "autogenderphilia": "if you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, it's a natural leap to be attracted to yourself being that gender."
-You suggest what you allege is a "very boring" hypothesis of "autogenderphilia": "if you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, it's a natural leap to be attracted to yourself being that gender."
+Explaining my view on this "boring hypothesis" turns out to be a surprisingly challenging writing task,
-In my ontology of how-the-world-works, this is _not_ a boring hypothesis. In my ontology, this is a _shockingly weird_ hypothesis, where I can read the English words, but I actually have a lot of trouble parsing the English words into a model in my head, because the antecedent, "If you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, then ...", already takes a massive prior probability penalty, because that category is multiply disjunctive over the natural space of biological similarities: you're grouping together lesbians _and_ gay men _and_ heterosexual males with a female gender identity _and_ heterosexual females with a male gender identity, and trying to make claim about what members of this group are like.
+because I suspect my actual crux comes down to a [Science _vs._ Bayescraft](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/viPPjojmChxLGPE2v/the-dilemma-science-or-bayes) thing, where I'm self-conscious about my answer [sounding weirdly overconfident on non-empirical grounds](https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/01/11/reality-is-very-weird-and-you-need-to-be-prepared-for-that/) to someone who doesn't already share my parsimony intuitions—but, frankly, I also expect my parsiony intuitions to actually get the right answer in the real world, and modesty/[Outside View](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FsfnDfADftGDYeG4c/outside-view-as-conversation-halter)/[Caution on Bias Arguments](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/17/caution-on-bias-arguments/) to get the wrong answer.
+
+If we have a big causal graph with C at the root (E₂ ← E₁ ← C → E₃ ...) with real-valued variables, and someone proposes a theory about what happens to the E_i when C is between 2 and 3 or between 5 and 6 or above 12, that's very unparsimonious: why would such a discontinuous hodge-pause of values for the cause, have consistent effects?
+
+In my worldview, "gender" (as the thing trans women and cis women have in common) looks like a hodge-podge as far as biology is concerned. (It can be real socially to the extent that people believe it's real and act accordingly, which creates the relevant conditional indpendence structure in their social behavior—but sexuality looks more "biological" than "social".)
+
+In my ontology of how-the-world-works, this is _not_ a boring hypothesis. In my ontology, this is a shockingly weird hypothesis, where I can read the English words, but I have a lot of trouble parsing the English words into a model in my head, because the antecedent, "If you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, then ...", already takes a massive prior probability penalty, because that category is multiply disjunctive over the natural space of biological similarities: you're grouping together lesbians _and_ gay men _and_ heterosexual males with a female gender identity _and_ heterosexual females with a male gender identity, and trying to make claim about what members of this group are like.
What do lesbians, and gay men, and heterosexual males with a female gender identity, and heterosexual females with a male gender identity have in common, such that we expect to make useful inductive inferences about this group?
The _reason_ I believe autogynephlia (in males) "is a thing" and causally potent to transgenderedness in the first place, is not because trans women gave a mean Likert response of 3.4 on someone's survey, but as the output of my brain's inductive inference algorithms operating on a _massive_ confluence of a [real-life experiences](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/) and observations in a naturalistic setting. (That's how people [locate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MwQRucYo6BZZwjKE7/einstein-s-arrogance) survey questions are worth asking in the first place, out of the vastness of possible survey questions.)
-If you look at what trans women say _to each other_ when the general public isn't looking, you see the same stories (examples from /r/MtF: ["I get horny when I do 'girl things'. Is this a fetish?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/qy4ncb/i_get_horny_when_i_do_girl_things_is_this_a_fetish/), ["Is the 'body swap' fetish inherently pre-trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/q8k57y/is_the_body_swap_fetish_inherently_pretrans/), ["Could it be a sex fantasy?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/rd78kw/could_it_be_a_sex_fantasy/), _&c._, _ad infinitum_) _over and over and over_ again.
+If you look at what trans women say _to each other_ when the general public isn't looking, you see the same stories (examples from /r/MtF: ["I get horny when I do 'girl things'. Is this a fetish?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/qy4ncb/i_get_horny_when_i_do_girl_things_is_this_a_fetish/), ["Is the 'body swap' fetish inherently pre-trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/q8k57y/is_the_body_swap_fetish_inherently_pretrans/), ["Could it be a sex fantasy?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/rd78kw/could_it_be_a_sex_fantasy/), _&c._, _ad infinitum_) over and over and over again.
Without making any pretentions whatsoever to rigor or Science, but _just_ looking at the world and trying to describe it in words, I think there is clearly a _thing_ here. When I look at what women write, and when I look at what gay men write, I don't see the _same thing_.
-_After_ observing this kind of pattern in the world, it's a good idea to do surveys to get some numbers and data to help you learn more about what's going on with the pattern. There's clearly a thing here, but is the thing being generated by a _visible minority_, or is it actually a majority? When [82% of /r/MtF users say Yes to "Did you have a gender/body swap/transformation "fetish" (or similar) before you realised you were trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/89nw0w/did_you_have_a_genderbody_swaptransformation/), that makes me think it's actually a majority.
+After observing this kind of pattern in the world, it's a good idea to do surveys to get some numbers and data to help you learn more about what's going on with the pattern. There's clearly a thing here, but is the thing being generated by a visible minority, or is it actually a majority? When [82% of /r/MtF users say Yes to "Did you have a gender/body swap/transformation "fetish" (or similar) before you realised you were trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/89nw0w/did_you_have_a_genderbody_swaptransformation/), that makes me think it's a majority.
When you pose a vaguely similar question to a different group, are you measuring the same real-world phenomenon in that other group? Maybe, but I think this is very nonobvious.
I can't _prove_ that all these ***physiological males with male-typical interests whose female gender identities seem closely intertwined with their gynephilic (i.e. male-typical) sexuality*** (we _agree_ on all that!!) are men with a fetish rather than women in male bodies—for the same reason I can't prove there's not an [invisible inaudiable dragon that's permeable to flour](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief) in your garage. From my perspective, it looks like you just have a fundamentally broken epistemology; from your perspective, I probably look like I'm dogmatically making unexplained inferential leaps.
-Ozy has an old post about [how "the community" doesn't have a _gender_ gap; we merely have an _assigned sex at birth_ gap](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/lw-has-an-assigned-sex-at-birth-gap-not-a-gender-gap/). In my worldview, this should be _embarrassing_. (If you keep running into domains where "assigned" sex is a more useful predictor than "gender", that should be a clue that sex is real and gender identity is fake.) But if Ozy's mind hasn't been [created already in motion](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CuSTqHgeK4CMpWYTe/created-already-in-motion) to find it embarrassing even after it's been pointed out, then I'm not sure what else I can say?
-
If it were _just_ a matter of different priors (where my stronger [inductive bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_bias) lets me learn faster from less data, at the cost of [being wrong in universes that I think mostly don't exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization)), I would expect you to express more uncertainty. I would _totally_ respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality. [I _agree_ that causality is _much harder_ to pin down than mere correlation.](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/)
-But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"!! If you're _not_ playing a "does the evidence permit me to believe" game, I just don't see how you think the _SSC_ survey data is powerful enough to answer that question one way or the other! If I had a prior belief that invisible dragons were plausible, I would remain _agnostic_ about the no-dragon _vs._ invisible-dragon hypotheses upon seeing an apparently empty garage. But to say that the no-dragon hypothesis "just seems totally wrong" ... ?!?!
-
-----
-If we have a big causal graph with C at the root (E₂ ← E₁ ← C → E₃ ...) with real-valued variables, and someone proposes a theory about what happens to the E_i when C is between 2 and 3 or between 5 and 6 or above 12, that's very unparsimonious: why would such a discontinuous hodge-pause of values for the cause, have consistent effects?
-
-In my worldview, "gender" (as the thing trans women and cis women have in common) looks like a hodge-podge as far as biology is concerned. (It can be real socially to the extent that people believe it's real and act accordingly, which creates the relevant conditional indpendence structure in their social behavior—but sexuality looks more "biological" than "social".)
first edit pass bookmark: "I got a chance to talk to"
time-sensitive globals TODOs—
-- apply pro edits to pt. 3 (waiting on remaining parts)
-- address red team objections to pt. 3
+✓ address red team objections to pt. 3
+- apply pro edits to pt. 3
- address auto edit tier to pt. 3
_ schedule Friendship Day at Valinor
_ consult Anna
-_ consult Said
+_ clear with Steven
_ Jessica's dramapost § in pt. 5
_ consult 93 about Jessica's dramapost §
_ finish and ship "Reply to Scott on Autogenderphilia"
_ finish and ship "Hrunkner Unnerby"
-_ psychiatric disaster doc
+_ psychiatric disaster private doc
_ clear with Michael/Ben/Jessica
_ clear with Alicorn
_ clear with Kelsey
_ address auto edit tier to pt. 4–5
_ red team pt. 4–5
_ pro edit pt. 4–5
+_ consult lc
-pt. 3 edit tier (red team edition)—
-✓ extract these kinds of statements of political alignment as concessions
-✓ credibly helpful unsolicited criticism
-✓ male multivariate distribution
-✓ reserve the right to lie
-✓ how to be principled about the ways in which you're dishonest
-✓ I don't think the group of gay men and lesbian
-✓ narcissistic delusions (soften)
-✓ ended up growing out of it (footnote the number?)
-✓ harm I'm theorizing (model of the child)
-✓ might be fictional (reword to not leak info)
pt. 3 edit tier (auto edition)—
-✓ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
-✓ footnote explaining quibbles on clarification
-✓ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
-✓ hint at "Yes Requires" objector being trans
-✓ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
-✓ clarify "A Lesson is Learned"
-- explain the "jump to evaluation" failure
-- FTX
-_ where were all the trans kids 10 years ago?
-_ clarify that cheerful price history is with Anna specifically
+✓ FTX aside footnote version
+✓ revert alphabet names (from 17638259f20)
+✓ narcissistic delusions
+✓ clarify that cheerful price history is with Anna specifically
+_ screenshot "pleading, snarky reply"
+_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
----
+_ breakup song
_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage (tie in to moderation policy?)
_ being friends with dogs (it's good, but do I have the wordcount budget?)
_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier (editor might catch?)
_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (editor might catch?)
_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it) (but it still seems clear to me on re-read?)
-_ screenshot "pleading, snarky reply"
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
pt. 4 edit tier—
✓ "Ideology Is Not the Movement" mentions not misgendering
_ Yudkowsky thinking reasoning wasn't useful
_ Jessica brought up race & IQ (she skimmed the previous draft, so I should highlight this)
_ Ben publish "Discursive Warfare and Faction Formation" doc?
-_ FTX and nuance epilogue (new)
+_ quick note about FTX
_ Michael's SLAPP against REACH (new)
_ Michael on creepy and crazy men (new)
_ elided Sasha disaster (new)
-----
-
Michael said that we didn't want to police Eliezer's behavior, but just note that something had seemingly changed and move on. "There are a lot of people who can be usefully informed about the change," Michael said. "Not him though."
That was the part I couldn't understand, the part I couldn't accept.
11/13/2023,118752,-221\r
11/14/2023,118842,90\r
11/15/2023,118938,96\r
-11/16/2023,,\r
-\r
-\r
+11/16/2023,118608,-330\r
+11/17/2023,117244,-1364\r
+11/18/2023,117350,106\r
+11/19/2023,,\r
+11/20/2023,,
\ No newline at end of file
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff