From 62d8299e5bf9beb4d223dfaa2bc1bea7770381e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake" Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 17:49:57 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] memoir: "LessWrong.com is dead to me", pt. 1 --- .../if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md | 26 +++++++++++------ notes/memoir-sections.md | 28 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md b/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md index 3638821..2e58245 100644 --- a/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md +++ b/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ In a subthread in which I contested Kosoy's characterization of me as a "voice w Norms discouraging "political" speech could aggravate the problem, if the response looked "political" but the original threat didn't. If Kosoy wanted to put in the work to explain why my philosophy of language blogging was causing problems for her, she would face legitimate doubt whether her defensive measures would be "admissible". -The trainwreck got so bad that the mods manually [moved the comments to their own post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WwTPSkNwC89g3Afnd/comment-section-from-05-19-2019). Based on the karma scores and what was said, I count it as a "victory" for me. +The trainwreck got so bad that the mods manually [moved the comments to their own post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WwTPSkNwC89g3Afnd/comment-section-from-05-19-2019). Based on the karma scores and what was said (Said Achmiz gave [a particularly helpful defense of disregarding community members' feelings](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WwTPSkNwC89g3Afnd/comment-section-from-05-19-2019?commentId=EsSdLMrFcCpSvr3pG)), I count it as a "victory" for me. On 31 May 2019, a [draft of a new _Less Wrong_ FAQ](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MqrzczdGhQCRePgqN/feedback-requested-draft-of-a-new-about-welcome-page-for) included a link to "... Not Man for the Categories" as one of Scott Alexander's best essays. I argued that it would be better to cite _almost literally_ any other _Slate Star Codex_ post (most of which, I agreed, were exemplary). I claimed that the following disjunction was true: _either_ Alexander's claim that "There's no rule of rationality saying that [one] shouldn't" "accept an unexpected [X] or two deep inside the conceptual boundaries of what would normally be considered [Y] if it'll save someone's life" was a blatant lie, _or_ one had no grounds to criticize me for calling it a blatant lie, because there's no rule of rationality that says I shouldn't draw the category boundaries of "blatant lie" that way. The mod [was persuaded on reflection](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MqrzczdGhQCRePgqN/feedback-requested-draft-of-a-new-about-welcome-page-for?commentId=oBDjhXgY5XtugvtLT), and "... Not Man for the Categories" was not included in the final FAQ. Another "victory." @@ -151,19 +151,27 @@ And I was like, I agree that I was unreasonably emotionally attached to that par Math and Wellness Month ended up being mostly a failure: the only math I ended up learning was [a fragment of group theory](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2019/05/group-theory-for-wellness-i/), and [some probability/information theory](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2019/05/the-typical-set/) that [later turned out to super-relevant to understanding sex differences](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/#typical-point). So much for taking a break. -In June 2019, +In June 2019, I made [a linkpost on _Less Wrong_](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5nH5Qtax9ae8CQjZ9/tal-yarkoni-no-it-s-not-the-incentives-it-s-you) to Tal Yarkoni's ["No, It's Not The Incentives—It's you"](https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/), about how professional scientists should stop using career incentives as an excuse for doing poor science. It generated a lot of discussion. -[TODO: - * I had posted a linkpost to "No, it's not The Incentives—it's You", which generated a lot of discussion, and Jessica (17 June) identified Ray's comments as the last straw. +Looking over the thread in retrospect, [these words from David Xu seem significant](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5nH5Qtax9ae8CQjZ9/tal-yarkoni-no-it-s-not-the-incentives-it-s-you?commentId=qDPdneAQ4s7HMt3ys): + +> _We all know that falsifying data is bad._ But if that's the way the incentives point (and that's a very important if!), then it's _also_ bad to call people out for doing it. If you do that, then you're using moral indignation as a weapon—a way to not only coerce other people into using up their willpower, but to come out of it looking good yourself. + +In an email (Subject: "LessWrong.com is dead to me"), Jessica identified the thread (in particular, moderator Ray Arnold's comments) as her last straw: > LessWrong.com is a place where, if the value of truth conflicts with the value of protecting elites' feelings and covering their asses, the second value will win. > -> Trying to get LessWrong.com to adopt high-integrity norms is going to fail, hard, without a _lot_ of conflict. (Enforcing high-integrity norms is like violence; if it doesn't work, you're not doing enough of it). +> Trying to get LessWrong.com to adopt high-integrity norms is going to fail, hard, without a _lot_ of conflict. (Enforcing high-integrity norms is like violence; if it doesn't work, you're not doing enough of it). People who think being exposed as fraudulent (or having their friends exposed as fraudulent) is a terrible outcome, are going to actively resist high-integrity discussion norms. + +Posting on _Less Wrong_ made sense as harm-reduction, but the only way to get people to stick up for truth would be to convert them to _a whole new worldview_, which would require a lot of in-person discussions. She bought up the idea of starting a new forum to replace _Less Wrong_. + +Ben said that trying to discuss with the _Less Wrong_ mod team would be a good intermediate step, after we clarified to ourselves what was going on; it might be "good practice in the same way that the Eliezer initiative was good practice." He was less optimistic about harm-reduction; participating on the site was implicitly endorsing it by submitting the rule of the karma and curation systems. + +Secret posse member expressed sadness about how the discussion on "The Incentives" demonstrated that the community he loved—including dear friends—was in a very bad way. Michael (in a separate private discussion) had said he was glad to hear about the belief-update. Secret posse member said that Michael saying that also made them sad, because it seemed discordant to be happy about sad news. Michael wrote (in the thread): + +> I['m] sorry it made you sad. From my perspective, the question is no[t] "can we still be friends with such people", but "how can we still be friends with such people" and I am pretty certain that understanding their perspective if an important part of the answer. If clarity seems like death to them and like life to us, and we don't know this, IMHO that's an unpromising basis for friendship. - * posting on Less Wrong was harm-reduction; the only way to get people to stick up for truth would be to convert them to _a whole new worldview_; Jessica proposed the idea of a new discussion forum - * Ben thought that trying to discuss with the other mods would be a good intermediate step, after we clarified to ourselves what was going on; talking to other mods might be "good practice in the same way that the Eliezer initiative was good practice"; Ben is less optimistic about harm reduction; "Drowning Children Are Rare" was barely net-upvoted, and participating was endorsing the karma and curation systems - * David Xu's comment on "The Incentives" seems important? - * secret posse member: Ray's attitude on "Is being good costly?" +[TODO— * Jessica: scortched-earth campaign should mostly be in meatspace social reality * my comment on emotive conjugation (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qaYeQnSYotCHQcPh8/drowning-children-are-rare#GaoyhEbzPJvv6sfZX) diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index a35bac8..37ba39e 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -7,14 +7,14 @@ marked TODO blocks— ✓ the Death With Dignity era [pt. 6] ✓ New York [pt. 6] ✓ scuffle on "Yes Requires the Possibility" [pt. 4] -_ reaction to Ziz [pt. 4] -_ "Unnatural Categories Are Optimized for Deception" [pt. 4] -_ "Lesswrong.com is dead to me" [pt. 4] -_ confronting Olivia [pt. 2] +✓ "Unnatural Categories Are Optimized for Deception" [pt. 4] +- "Lesswrong.com is dead to me" [pt. 4] _ AI timelines scam [pt. 4] _ secret thread with Ruby [pt. 4] _ progress towards discussing the real thing [pt. 4] _ epistemic defense meeting [pt. 4] +_ reaction to Ziz [pt. 4] +_ confronting Olivia [pt. 2] _ State of Steven [pt. 4] _ Somni [pt. 4] _ rude maps [pt. 4] @@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ _ the story of my Feb./Apr. 2017 recent madness [pt. 2] it was actually "wander onto the AGI mailing list wanting to build a really big semantic net" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9HGR5qatMGoz4GhKj/above-average-ai-scientists) With internet available— +_ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/2Ses9aB8jSDZtyRnW/duncan-sabien-on-moderating-lesswrong#comment-aoqWNe6aHcDiDh8dr +_ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/trvFowBfiKiYi7spb/open-thread-july-2019#comment-RYhKrKAxiQxY3FcHa _ correct italics in quoted Eliezerfic back-and-forth _ lc on elves and Sparashki _ Nate would later admit that this was a mistake @@ -215,7 +217,8 @@ _ hostile prereader (April, J. Beshir, Swimmer, someone else from Alicorner #dra _ Kelsey (briefly) _ NRx Twitter bro _ maybe SK (briefly about his name)? (the memoir might have the opposite problem (too long) from my hostile-shorthand Twitter snipes) -_ Megan (that poem could easily be about some other entomologist named Megan) +_ Megan (that poem could easily be about some other entomologist named Megan) ... I'm probably going to cut that §, though +_ David Xu? (Is it OK to name him in his LW account?) marketing— _ Twitter @@ -2210,4 +2213,17 @@ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HcCpvYLoSFP4iAqSz/rationality-appreciating-cogni Robert Heinlein > “What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!” -https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38764-what-are-the-facts-again-and-again-and-again \ No newline at end of file +https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38764-what-are-the-facts-again-and-again-and-again + + + "sender_name": "Zack M. Davis", + "timestamp_ms": + "content": "at this point, I actually am just starting to hate trans women by default (the visible kind, not the androphilic early-transitioning kind); the \"indulging a mental illness that makes them want to become women\" model is waaaaay more accurate than the standard story, and the people who actually transition are incentivized/selected for self-delusion, which is really unfair to the people who aren't delusional about it", + "type": "Generic" + }, + "sender_name": + "timestamp_ms": [Sat Jan 21 10:06:17 PST 2017] + "content": "I'm afraid to even think that in the privacy of my own head, but I agree with you that is way more reasonable", + "type": "Generic" + +"but the ideological environment is such that a Harvard biologist/psychologist is afraid to notice blatantly obvious things in the privacy of her own thoughts, that's a really scary situation to be in (insofar as we want society's decisionmakers to be able to notice things so that they can make decisions)", \ No newline at end of file -- 2.17.1