near editing tier—
+✓ scan through "far editing tier" list and scoot anything applicable to the near editing tier
+_ scan through pt. 1½ and extract highlights to include in pt. 1–6
✓ explain that "A Human's Guide to Words" / 37 Ways are the same text
_ explain the title
_ Caliphate / craft and the community
_ happy price subject line in pt. 1
_ incentives of gatekeeping and system-mandated lies
_ conflict theory of transness!!
+_ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era
+_ smooth out "still had his email" callback
_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language
_ "Margaret" discussion needs to cover the part where I'd cause less disruption if I transitioned
_ so embarrassed after the Singularity
_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it
_ Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake
_ scan through "People" for any more details I want to incorporate later
-_ pt. 1 end should summarize missing part a little more
+_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
_ pt. 1 end needs to mention BABSCon (back referenced)
_ more self-awareness about the ethical
_ born five years too early
-
-
-"pro editor might know better how to fix this" tier—
-_ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era
-_ smooth out "still had his email" callback
+_ you didn't do a good job explaining to me why someone would think that being bullied into selective silence doesn't constitute a conflict strategy
+_ mention HRT pause / stop in pt. 1 end
+_ psych ward vs. psych hospital
+_ "A Hill": I claim that I'm not doing much psychologizing because implausible to be simultaenously savvy enough to say this, and naive enough to not be doing so knowingly
+_ running away to Burlingame; Hamilton tickets
+_ "counterfactual boyfriend"/It's California in the year 2016??
+_ be clearer about dates in "Wilhelm" conversations??
+_ "people with fragile identities" dialogue doesn't fit the flow, probably cut or move
+_ get exact dates and correct Sequencing on late 2016 conversations
+_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
+_ re Persongen, footnote or sentences about how I knew I was wrong to use naïve-Bayes on facets, but I didn't know what was right
+_ the function of privacy norms is to protect you from people who want to selectively reveal information to hurt you, so it makes sense that I'm particularly careful about Yudkowsky's privacy and not Scott's, because I totally am trying to hurt Yudkowsky (this also protects me from the charge that by granting more privacy to Yudkowsky than Scott, I'm implying that Yudkowsky said something more incriminating; the difference in treatment is about _me_ and my expectations, rather than what they may or may not have said when I tried emailing them); I want it to be clear that I'm attacking him but not betraying him
+_ elaborate on why I'm not leaking sensitive bits, by explaining what can be inferred by what was and wasn't said in public
+_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
+_ clarify why Michael thought Scott was "gaslighting" me, include "beeseech bowels of Christ"
+_ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread
+_ explain "court ruling" earlier
+_ Nov. 2018 continues thread from Oct. 2016 conversation
+_ better explanation of posse formation
+_ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake
+_ better summary of Littman
+_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
people to consult specifically before pt. 1–3:
✓ Anna
✓ Ben/Jessica (Michael)
✓ "Riley"
+✓ Scott
- "Thomas"
- "Rebecca"
-- Scott
- Sarah
to send (Discord)—
_ Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
far editing tier—
+_ colony ship happiness lie in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWaJvBMb9HGBwtNqd/qualitative-strategies-of-friendliness
+_ re being fair to abusers: thinking about what behavior pattern you would like to see, generally, by people in your situation, instead of privileging the perspective and feelings of people who've made themselves vulnerable to you by transgressing against you
+_ body odors comment
_ "Density in Thingspace" comment
-_ mention "Beatrice" earlier!!
-_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
-_ make sure I mention father asking me to wait before re-starting HRT
-_ "People": say something about the awkward racial/political dynamics of three of my four anecdotes being about black people? Salient because rare? Salient because of my NRx-pilling?
_ Christmas with Scott: mention the destruction of "voluntary"?
_ Christmas with Scott: mention the grid of points?
-_ psych ward vs. psych hospital
-_ "A Hill": I claim that I'm not doing much psychologizing because implausible to be simultaenously savvy enough to say this, and naive enough to not be doing so knowingly
_ dath ilan as a whining-based community
_ footnote to explain that when I'm summarizing a long Discord conversation to taste, I might move things around into "logical" time rather than "real time"; e.g. Yudkowsky's "powerfully relevant" and "but Superman" comments were actually one right after the other; and, e.g., I'm filling in more details that didn't make it into the chat, like innate kung fu; and that the fact that I can "enhance" the summaries of my part, but the people I'm talking to don't have the same privilege, should be taken into account—actually, this covers a lot of the memoir; maybe I should mention this earlier (and again in a footnote??)
_ 93's alternate theory of eliezera taste for deception
_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
_ "Even our pollution is beneficial" [pt. 6]
_ Scott Aaronson on the blockchain of science [pt. 6]
-_ Re: on legitimacy and the entrepreneur; or, continuing the attempt to spread my sociopathic awakening onto Scott [pt. 2 somewhere]
-_ running away to Burlingame; Hamilton tickets
-_ include Wilhelm "Gender Czar" conversation? [pt. 2]
_ "EA" brand ate the "rationalism" brand—even visible in MIRI dialogues
_ Anna's heel–face turn
-_ "counterfactual boyfriend"/It's California in the year 2016
_ not talking about pivotal acts, downstream of not believing in Speech?
_ Alyssa lying about me [pt. 4]
_ Brian Skyrms??
-_ emailing Blanchard/Bailey/Hsu/Lawrence [pt. 2]
-_ HRT (non-)effects, and quitting [pt. 2]
_ mr-hire and pre-emptive steelmanning (before meeting LW mods)
_ meeting with Ray
-_ need to mention Brent's pariah status
-_ be clearer about dates in "Wilhelm" conversations??
-_ "people with fragile identities" dialogue doesn't fit the flow, probably cut or move
_ is the Glowfic author "Lintamande ... they" or "Lintamande ... she"?
_ explain plot of _Planecrash_ better
_ CfAR's AI pivot??
_ explain mods protect-feelings
_ explain MOPs better
_ Motta-Mena and Puts probability-of-gynephilia-by-intersex-condition graph, re trans kids on the margin
-_ get exact dates and correct Sequencing on late 2016 conversations
-_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
_ probably give Amelia as pseudonym?
-_ re Persongen, footnote or sentences about how I knew I was wrong to use naïve-Bayes on facets, but I didn't know what was right
_ squeeze "Darkness and Light" into the Eliezerfic account
_ clarify Sarah dropping out of the coordination group
_ somewhere in dath ilan discussion: putting a wrapper on graphic porn is fine, de-listing Wikipedia articles is not
_ New York NRx conversation, flesh out "mostly guys"; I was acknowleding diversity as unrealistic and hypocritical; he outright doesn't believe in "people" as opposed to men/women
_ fold in observations from "trapped priors—at home"
_ earlier reference the children's books?! "And the Methods of Pre-Rationality"
-_ "Do not ask for additional services" doxxable? revise?
_ Yudkowsky's "Is someone trolling?" comment as counterevidence to narcissim
_ "typographical attack surface" isn't clear
_ voting reputation section is weak, needs revision
_ explain the "if the world were at stake" Sword of Good reference better
_ D. also acknowledged AGP
_ "no one else would have spoken" should have been a call-to-action to read more widely
-_ explain who Kay Brown is
-_ "Great Common Task" is probably capitalized
_ mention Will MacAskill's gimped "longtermism" somehow
_ re-read a DALL-E explanation and decide if I think it's less scary now
_ Scott Aaronson on the blockchain of science https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6821
_ footnote previous race-IQ baiting on "why do I keep bringing this up"
-_ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yaCwW8nPQeJknbCgf/free-speech-and-triskaidekaphobic-calculators-a-reply-to as part of December 2019 blogging streak
+_ Bostrom email scandal, Oli's comment about him staying off of the pause letter
_ "I Wish You Well" as breakup song
-_ the function of privacy norms is to protect you from people who want to selectively reveal information to hurt you, so it makes sense that I'm particularly careful about Yudkowsky's privacy and not Scott's, because I totally am trying to hurt Yudkowsky (this also protects me from the charge that by granting more privacy to Yudkowsky than Scott, I'm implying that Yudkowsky said something more incriminating; the difference in treatment is about _me_ and my expectations, rather than what they may or may not have said when I tried emailing them); I want it to be clear that I'm attacking him but not betraying him
_ acknowledge that
_ pull "agreeing with Stalin" quote earlier in ms. to argue that Yudkowsky apparently doesn't disagree with my "deliberately ambiguous"
_ is the title of pt. 4 OK? (agreeing with Stalin _is_ correct when Stalin is right; the problem is that Stalin isn't right about gender)
_ mention Said rigor check somewhere, nervousness about Michael's gang being a mini-egregore
_ at some point, speculate on causes of brain damage
_ the "reducing negativity" post does obliquely hint at the regression point being general ("Let's say that the true level of negativity"), does that seriously undermine my thesis, or does it only merit a footnote?
-_ elaborate on why I'm not leaking sensitive bits, by explaining what can be inferred by what was and wasn't said in public
-_ footnote on "no one would even consider"
+_ footnote on "no one would even consider"
_ post-Christmas conversation should do a better job of capturing the war, that Jessica thinks Scott is Bad for being a psychiatrist
_ conversation with Scott should include the point where I'm trying to do AI theory
_ consistent-ize reference to Somni getting it in pt. 4, with mention of protest in pt. 3
_ Anna "everyone knows" we don't have free speech 2 Mar 2019, self-centeredness about which global goods matter
-_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
_ make sure to quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy before calling back to it
_ tie off Anna's plot arc?
_ explain earlier that my practice of "throw money at things" also applied to my friendship with Anna
_ mention my robot cult history (I've been here since the late 'aughts)
_ quote one more "Hill of Meaning" Tweet emphasizing fact/policy distinction
-_ conversation with Ben about physical injuries (this is important because it explains where the "cut my dick off rhetoric" came from)
-_ context of his claim to not be taking a stand
+_ explains that the "cut my dick off rhetoric" came from conversation with Ben
_ being friends with Anna desipite being political enemies (~May 2019)
_ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
_ smoother transition between "deliberately ambiguous" and "was playing dumb"; I'm not being paranoid for attributing political motives to him, because he told us that he's doing it
_ when I'm too close to verbatim-quoting someone's email, actually use a verbatim quote and put it in quotes
_ I'm sure Eliezer Yudkowsky could think of some relevant differences
-_ clarify why Michael thought Scott was "gaslighting" me, include "beeseech bowels of Christ"
-_ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread
-_ explain "court ruling" earlier
_ 2019 Discord discourse with Alicorner
_ edit discussion of "anti-trans" side given that I later emphasize that "sides" shouldn't be a thing
-_ first EY contact was asking for public clarification or "I am being silenced" (so Glomarizing over "unsatisfying response" or no response isn't leaking anything Yudkowksy cares about)
-_ Nov. 2018 continues thread from Oct. 2016 conversation
-_ better explanation of posse formation
_ maybe quote Michael's Nov 2018 texts?
-_ mention Nov. 2018 conversation with Ian somehow; backref on bidding for attention again; subject line from Happy Price 2016
_ Said on Yudkowsky's retreat to Facebook being bad for him
_ erasing agency of Michael's friends, construed as a pawn
-_ mention the fact that Anna had always taken a "What You Can't Say" strategy
-_ late 2016 meeting with Ziz
_ when to use first _vs. last names
-_ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake
-_ better summary of Littman
_ explain Rob
_ edit the child transition section in a way that Kay Brown would be OK with, have a few sentences about Clever Hans before the wrap-up
_ ask Jessica where Scott clarified his position on antipsychotics?
-_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
_ why doesn't he apply his anti-optimism to his gender statements?!
_ notice the symmetry where _both_ E and I want to partition the discussion with "That's a policy question" ... I just think it's unfair to partition after "words don't have intrinsic defn's" rather than 37 ways
_ contract-drafting em, SSC blogroll is most of my traffic
_ figure out full timeline of which of my Less Wrong posts to mention
_ update "80,000 words" refs with the near-final wordcount
_ the "outright bad faith" clause in "Your Price for Joining"
-_ less afraid of hurting O.
_ secret posse member pointing out that it worked better because it was Oli
_ update "karma at press time"
_ better explain "lie inflation" ambiguity
_ backlink Yudkowsky's implicit political concession
_ backlink "again grateful" for doctor's notes
+pt. 1½ posterity tier (probably not getting published)—
+_ "People": say something about the awkward racial/political dynamics of three of my four anecdotes being about black people? Salient because rare? Salient because of my NRx-pilling?
+_ Re: on legitimacy and the entrepreneur; or, continuing the attempt to spread my sociopathic awakening onto Scott [pt. 2 somewhere]
+_ include Wilhelm "Gender Czar" conversation? [pt. 2]
+_ emailing Blanchard/Bailey/Hsu/Lawrence [pt. 2]
+
+
+
terms to explain on first mention—
_ inpatient/outpatient
_ NRx
A hill of validity in defense of meaning.
-playing a Dagny Taggart strategy: https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1606718513267486721
\ No newline at end of file
+playing a Dagny Taggart strategy: https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1606718513267486721
+
+-------
+
+I actually thought, "It's so weird to have the psychological upper hand over Vasar" ... I can see a possible story where we was unnerved that I was holding my own in the email argument, so he switched venues to in-person
+
+I _do_ think about psych warfare sometimes (like with Ray)
+
+A possible counterargument to that would be that (at a minimum for many people in many contexts), emotion can't be effectively faked.
+
+I get better criticism from 93, in that he tells me that my ideas are full of shit without making it personal
+
+> No I think there's a case for this approach. Like you see the argument for why you might want to be laboriously fair to Yud because it's important that no one dismiss your complaints on the grounds of "I dunno, doesn't seem fair enough for me".
+> Whereas doing that for every random person you mention would be a lot of work.
+
+
+I never got an answer to why it was wrong for me to talk to Scott!! And the contradiction between that, and Ben's emphasis on privacy being unjust!
+
+It would have been a lot simpler if you could _just_ make object-level criticisms: "'yelling' is a tendentious description, from our perspective we were arguing passionately"—rather than first
+
+If someone ran over a pedestrian in their car, at the trial you would actually argue about how culpable they are (if they were drunk, it would be worse than if it could be proven to be a freak accident), and "The victim is so much worse off than you!!" isn't actually an argument relevant to determination of culpability
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff