From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:32:22 +0000 (-0800) Subject: Tuesday morning drafting "Challenges" X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1982994a80507222297c386249d9b72be7c77b5d;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git Tuesday morning drafting "Challenges" Keep the momentum --- diff --git a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md index 0ccaaf7..8044524 100644 --- a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md +++ b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md @@ -373,9 +373,32 @@ Sure, _in the limit of arbitrarily advanced technology_, everyone could be exact Rather, previously sexspace had two main clusters (normal females and males) plus an assortment of tiny clusters corresponding to various [disorders of sex development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development), and now it has two additional tiny clusters: females-on-masculinizing-HRT and males-on-feminizing-HRT. Certainly, there are situations where you would want to use "gender" categories that use the grouping {females, males-on-feminizing-HRT} and {males, females-on-masculinizing-HRT}. -But the _reason_ for having sex-segregated sports leagues is because the sport-relevant multivariate trait distributions of female bodies and male bodies are quite different. If you just had one integrated league, females wouldn't be competitive (in almost all sports, with some exceptions [like ultra-distance swimming](https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/why-women-have-beaten-men-in-marathon-swimming/)). +But the _reason_ for having sex-segregated sports leagues is because the sport-relevant multivariate trait distributions of female bodies and male bodies are quite different. -Given the empirical reality of the different multivariate trait distributions, "Who are the best athletes _among females_" is a natural question for people to be interested in, and want separate sports leagues to determine. Including males in those leagues—even males on feminizing hormone replacement therapy—ruins that. +[TODO: (clean up and consolidate the case here after reading the TW-in-sports articles) + +The "multivariate" part is important, because + +Different traits have different relevance to different sports; the fact that it's apples-to-oranges is _why_ women do better in ultraswimming—that competition is sampling a corner of sportspace where body fat is an advantage + +It's not that females and males are exactly the same except males are 10% stronger on average + +It really is an apples-to-oranges comparison, rather than "two populations of apples with different mean weight" + +https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cu7YY7WdgJBs3DpmJ/the-univariate-fallacy +https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vhp2sW6iBhNJwqcwP/blood-is-thicker-than-water + +If you just had one integrated league, females wouldn't be competitive (in almost all sports, with some exceptions [like ultra-distance swimming](https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/why-women-have-beaten-men-in-marathon-swimming/)). + +] + +Given the empirical reality of the different multivariate trait distributions, "Who are the best athletes _among females_" is a natural question for people to be interested in, and want separate sports leagues to determine. + +(Similarly, when conducting [automobile races](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_racing), you want there to be rules enforcing that all competitors have the same type of car for some common-sense-reasonable operationalization of "the same type", because a race between a sports car and a [moped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped) would be mostly measuring who has the sports car, rather than who's the better racer.) + +Including males people in female sports leagues undermines the point of having a separate female league. + +[TODO: more sentences explaining why HRT doesn't break taxonicity of sex, and why "gender identity" is a much less plausible joint anyway] [TODO: sentences about studies showing that HRT doesn't erase male advantage https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1368176581965930501 @@ -387,25 +410,35 @@ https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 In light of these _empirical_ observations, Yudkowsky's suggestion that an ignorant comittment to an "Aristotelian binary" is the only reason someone might care about the integrity of women's sports, is revealed as an absurd strawman. This just isn't something any scientifically-literate person would write if they had actually thought about the issue _at all_, as contrasted to having _first_ decided (consciously or not) to bolster one's reputation among progressives by dunking on transphobes on Twitter, and wielding one's philosophy knowledge in the service of that political goal. The relevant empirical facts are _not subtle_, even if most people don't have the fancy vocabulary to talk about them in terms of "multivariate trait distributions". -Yudkowsky's pretensions to merely be standing up for the distinction between facts and policy questions aren't credible: if you _just_ wanted to point out that the organization of sports leagues is a policy question rather than a fact, [...] +Yudkowsky's pretension to merely have been standing up for the distinction between facts and policy questions isn't credible: if you _just_ wanted to point out that the organization of sports leagues is a policy question rather than a fact (as if anyone had doubted this), why would you throw in the "Aristotelian binary" strawman and belittle the matter as "humorous"? There are a lot of issues that I don't _personally_ care much about, but I don't see anything funny about the fact that other people _do_ care. + +(And in this case, the empirical facts are _so_ lopsided, that if we must find humor in the matter, it really goes the other way. Lia Thomas trounces the entire field by _4.2 standard deviations_ (!!), and world-class public intellectuals like Eliezer Yudkowsky feel obligated to _pretend not to see the problem?_ You've got to admit, that's a _little_ bit funny.) [TODO outlining remainder of coda—] -> it is sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful to post your agreement with Stalin about things you actually agree with Stalin about, in ways that exhibit generally rationalist principles, especially because people do _know_ they're living in a half-Stalinist environment +Still, having analyzed the _ways_ in which Yudkowsky is playing dumb on this issue, what's still not entirely clear is _why_. Presumably Yudkowsky cares about maintaining his credibility as an insightful and fair-minded thinker. Why tarnish that by putting out such blatantly one-sided propaganda? Of course, presumably he _doesn't_ think he's tarnishing it—but why not? [He explains in the Facebook comments](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228?comment_id=10159421833274228&reply_comment_id=10159421901809228): -Ah, _prudence!_ +> it is sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful to post your agreement with Stalin about things you actually agree with Stalin about, in ways that exhibit generally rationalist principles, especially because people do _know_ they're living in a half-Stalinist environment [...] I think people are better off at the end of that. -This is what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith means +Ah, personal _prudence_! He continues: + +> I don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot, or utter silence about everything Stalin has expressed an opinion on including "2 + 2 = 4" because if that logically counterfactually were wrong you would not be able to express an opposing opinion. + +[TODO: type out these five lines of rebuttal and then stitch them together somehow] [Summarize "A Rational Argument" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9f5EXt8KNNxTAihtZ/a-rational-argument You could imagine the campaign manager saying the same thing—"I don't see what the alternative is".] +This is what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith means + ["Everybody knows" https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/ ] -> I don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot, or utter silence about everything Stalin has expressed an opinion on including "2 + 2 = 4" because if that logically counterfactually were wrong you would not be able to express an opposing opinion. +["People are better off at the end of that"— _who_ is better off? I'm not better off ] [Agreeing with Stalin that 2+2=4 is fine; the problem is a sustained pattern of _selectively_ bring up pro-Party points while ignoring anti-Party facts that would otherwise be relevant to the topic of interest, including stonewalling commenters who try to point out relevance] +------- + [Why does this matter? It would be dishonest for me to claim that this is _directly_ relevant to xrisk, because that's not my real bottom line] a rationality community that can't think about _practical_ issues that affect our day to day lives, but can get existential risk stuff right, is like asking for self-driving car software that can drive red cars but not blue cars @@ -414,3 +447,6 @@ It's a _problem_ if public intellectuals in the current year need to pretend to https://www.readthesequences.com/ > Because it is all, in the end, one thing. I talked about big important distant problems and neglected immediate life, but the laws governing them aren't actually different. + +> the challenge is almost entirely about high integrity communication by small groups +https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1486044326618710018