"Blood Is Thicker Than Water" linkpost

diff --git a/content/2021/link-blood-is-thicker-than-water.md b/content/2021/link-blood-is-thicker-than-water.md
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..533a0a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/2021/link-blood-is-thicker-than-water.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+Title: Link: "Blood Is Thicker Than Water 🐬"
+Date: 2021-09-30 09:35
+Category: other
+Tags: categorization, epistemology, linkpost
+
+Ha ha, [those _Less Wrong_ guys sure love dolphins for whatever reason!](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vhp2sW6iBhNJwqcwP/blood-is-thicker-than-water) [(Alternative viewer.)](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/vhp2sW6iBhNJwqcwP/blood-is-thicker-than-water) Note that the "root of the causal graph" argument here for the relevance of phylogenetics is equivalent to [the case that sex chromosomes are a good way to operationalize _sex_ in humans](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/#chromosomes)—it's not that anyone directly sees chromosomes on a day-to-day basis; it's that chromosomes are the "switch" upstream of the development of all other sex differences. Talking about the setting of the switch (which you don't _intrinsically_ care about) is a concise way to sum over the many, many high-dimensional details that you do care about.

diff --git a/content/2021/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems.md b/content/2021/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems.md
index 3b2719a..3c7c329 100644 (file)
--- a/content/2021/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems.md
+++ b/content/2021/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems.md
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ Statistical sex differences are like flipping two different collections of coins
 
 A single-variable measurement like height is like a single coin: unless the coin is _very_ biased, one flip can't tell you much about the bias. But there are lots of things about people for which it's not that they can't be measured, but that the measurements require _more than one number_—which correspondingly offer more information about the distribution generating them.
 
-And knowledge about the distribution is genuinely informative. Occasionally you hear progressive-minded people dismiss and disdain simpleminded transphobes who believe that chromosomes determine sex, when actually, most people haven't been karyotyped and don't _know_ what chromosomes they have. (Um, with respect to some sense of the word "know" that doesn't care how unsurprised I was that my [23andMe](http://23andme.com/) results came back with a _Y_ and that I would have happily bet on this at extremely generous odds.)
+<a id="chromosomes"></a>And knowledge about the distribution is genuinely informative. Occasionally you hear progressive-minded people dismiss and disdain simpleminded transphobes who believe that chromosomes determine sex, when actually, most people haven't been karyotyped and don't _know_ what chromosomes they have. (Um, with respect to some sense of the word "know" that doesn't care how unsurprised I was that my [23andMe](http://23andme.com/) results came back with a _Y_ and that I would have happily bet on this at extremely generous odds.)
 
 Certainly, I agree that almost no one interacts with sex chromosomes on a day-to-day basis; no one even knew that sex chromosomes _existed_ before 1905. [(Co-discovered by a woman!)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettie_Stevens) But the function of [intensional definitions](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HsznWM9A7NiuGsp28/extensions-and-intensions) in human natural language isn't to exhaustively [pinpoint](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3FoMuCLqZggTxoC3S/logical-pinpointing) a concept in the detail it would be implemented in an AI's executing code, but rather to provide a "treasure map" sufficient for a listener to pick out the corresponding concept in their own world-model: that's why [Diogenes exhibiting a plucked chicken in response to Plato's definition of a human as a "featherless biped"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jMTbQj9XB5ah2maup/similarity-clusters) seems like a cheap "gotcha"—we all instantly know that's not what Plato meant. ["The challenge is figuring out which things are similar to each other—which things are clustered together—and sometimes, which things have a common cause."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/d5NyJ2Lf6N22AD9PB/where-to-draw-the-boundary) But sex chromosomes, and to a large extent specifically the [SRY gene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testis-determining_factor) located on the Y chromosome, _are_ such a common cause—the root of the [causal graph](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hzuSDMx7pd2uxFc5w/causal-diagrams-and-causal-models) underlying all _other_ sex differences. A smart natural philosopher living _before_ 1905, knowing about all the various observed differences between women and men, might have guessed at the existence of some molecular mechanism of sex determination, and been _right_. By the "treasure map" standard, "XX is female; XY is male" is a pretty _well-performing_ definition—if you're looking for a [_simple_ membership test](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests) that's entangled with a lot of information about the many intricate ways in which females and males statistically differ.