From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:09:30 +0000 (-0800) Subject: check in notes: yank 50% prediction comment to email draft X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=269aed94b6488cf7e10058bf34f67dc57ff77373;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git check in notes: yank 50% prediction comment to email draft --- diff --git a/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md b/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md index 52cd2a3..676e45e 100644 --- a/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md +++ b/content/drafts/reply-to-scott-alexander-on-autogenderphilia.md @@ -145,3 +145,14 @@ Even if it were _true_ that the late-onset type were caused by some You point to your survey data saying that cis gay men are autoandrophilic as something Blanchard–Bailey–Lawrence can't explain, but I don't see my theory as being particularly committed to making predictions about how gay men will answer the "Picture a very attractive man [...]" question. It's a different population! I would totally respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality; I can't expect everyone to share my parsimony intuitions. But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"! I just don't think that's something you can possibly conclude based on how _other populations_ are answering similar survey questions! + + +> We have a debate every year over whether 50% predictions are meaningful in this paradigm; feel free to continue it. + +Someone reading this who trusted Alexander as a general-purpose intellectual authority ("the best of us", the "rationalists") might walk away with the idea that it's an open problem whether 50% binary predictions are meaningful—perhaps reasoning, if the immortal Scott Alexander doesn't know, then who am I to know? + +But it's not. On this website, [Rafael Harth explains why 50% isn't special](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DAc4iuy4D3EiNBt9B/how-to-evaluate-50-predictions). I claim that this should actually be pretty obvious to competent quantitative thinkers, even if it's not obvious to the collective _SSC_/_ACX_ commentariat, and Alexander can't tell which of his commenters are competent quantitative thinkers. + +I don't particularly fault Scott for this: [by his own admission, he's not a math guy](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/). (And the vast majority of math people can't write as well or as fast as Scott. No one is the best at everything!) Rather, I'm saying that a culture that wants to _actually_ be right about everything would do better to _just_ focus on being right on the object level, without [wireheading on its own promises of being right about everything](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-recommending/). + +(Incidentally, Scott himself is actually very good about [not trying to claim more authority than is actually justified by his performance](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/). His fans should try to be more like him along this dimension!) diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt index 6404114..122b7f4 100644 --- a/notes/notes.txt +++ b/notes/notes.txt @@ -2937,18 +2937,6 @@ https://letter.wiki/conversation/1232 ---- -in the context of quantifying predictions, [in the post evaluating his 2020 predictions, Alexander writes](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2020-predictions-calibration-results): - -> We have a debate every year over whether 50% predictions are meaningful in this paradigm; feel free to continue it. - -Someone reading this who trusted Alexander as a general-purpose intellectual authority ("the best of us", the "rationalists") might walk away with the idea that it's an open problem whether 50% binary predictions are meaningful—perhaps reasoning, if the immortal Scott Alexander doesn't know, then who am I to know? - -But it's not. On this website, [Rafael Harth explains why 50% isn't special](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DAc4iuy4D3EiNBt9B/how-to-evaluate-50-predictions). I claim that this should actually be pretty obvious to competent quantitative thinkers, even if it's not obvious to the collective _SSC_/_ACX_ commentariat, and Alexander can't tell which of his commenters are competent quantitative thinkers. - -I don't particularly fault Scott for this: [by his own admission, he's not a math guy](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/). (And the vast majority of math people can't write as well or as fast as Scott. No one is the best at everything!) Rather, I'm saying that a culture that wants to _actually_ be right about everything would do better to _just_ focus on being right on the object level, without [wireheading on its own promises of being right about everything](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-recommending/). - -(Incidentally, Scott himself is actually very good about [not trying to claim more authority than is actually justified by his performance](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/). His fans should try to be more like him along this dimension!) - https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/ https://www.facebook.com/zmdavis/posts/10156642447060199 @@ -2968,3 +2956,8 @@ https://twitter.com/DrLesby/status/1484688293346234370 https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/transgender-reality-i-didnt-know-there-was-another-side/ https://sadbrowngirl.substack.com/p/the-way-we-werent + +https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/02/01/what-the-sex-in-the-city-reboot-can-teach-parents-about-gender-questioning-kids/ + +sex and occupational interests replication; I think surprisingly discrete cluster graph is averages by country across people vs. things (which is how it ends up being so discrete; it's not tracking individuals on multiple levels) +https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261438