From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 03:59:57 +0000 (-0700) Subject: check in X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=55fb696860acebe6e29b8ab97816bd6b0b13296c;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git check in --- 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 22d5e58..9e1bd0e 100644 --- a/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md +++ b/content/drafts/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them.md @@ -203,6 +203,8 @@ The meta-discussion on _Less Wrong_ started to get heated. Ruby claimed: "Wow, he's really overtly arguing that people should lie to him to protect his feelings," Ben commented via email. +(I would later complain to Anna (Subject: "uh, guys???", 20 July 2019) that Ruby's profile said he was one of two people to have volunteered for CfAR on three continents. If this was the level of performance we could expect from _veteran_ CfAR participants, what was CfAR _for_?) + [I replied to Ruby that](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xqAnKW46FqzPLnGmH/causal-reality-vs-social-reality?commentId=v3zh3KhKNTdMXWkJH) you could just directly respond to your interlocutor's arguments. Whether or not you respect them as a thinker is _off-topic_. "You said X, but this is wrong because of Y" isn't a personal attack! Jessica said that there's no point in getting mad at [MOPs](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/construction-beacons/). I said I was a _little_ bit mad, because I specialized in discourse strategies that were susceptible to getting trolled like this. I thought it was ironic that this happened on a post that was _explicitly_ about causal _vs._ social reality; it's possible that I wouldn't be inclined to be such a hardass about "whether or not I respect you is off-topic" if it weren't for that prompt. @@ -215,7 +217,7 @@ From this, Jessica derived the moral that when people are doing something that s Michael said that part of the reason this worked was because it represented a clear threat to skapegoat, while also _not_ skapegoating, and not surrendering the option to do so later; it was significant that Jessica's choice of example positioned her on the side of the powerful social-justice coalition. -"Trent" said that the amount of social-justice talk in the post rose to the level where they wouldn't dare criticize it or even mention it (!) in public, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed. +"Trent" said that the amount of social-justice talk in the post rose to the level where he wouldn't dare criticize it or even mention it (!) in public, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed. ------ @@ -257,7 +259,7 @@ Ray Arnold (another _Less Wrong_ mod) replied: (!!)[^what-works-now] -[^what-works-now]: Ray qualifies this in the next paragraph: +[^what-works-now]: Arnold qualifies this in the next paragraph: > [in public. In private things are much easier. It's _also_ the case that private channels enable collusion—that was an update [I]'ve made over the course of the conversation. ] @@ -455,7 +457,7 @@ To be absolutely clear about my terrible views, I said that I was privately mode Somni said that it was because I was being victimized by the same forces of gaslighting, and that I wasn't lying about my agenda. Maybe she _should_ be complaining about me?—but I seemed to be following a somewhat earnest epistemic process, whereas Kelsey, Scott, and Anna were not. If I were to start going, "Here's my rationality org; rule #1: no transfems (except me); rule #2, no telling people about rule #1", then she would talk about it. -I would later remark to Anna (Subject: "a peek behind the fog of war; and, [redacted]") that Somni and Ziz saw themselves as being oppressed by people's hypocritical and manipulative social perceptions and behavior. +I would later remark to Anna (Subject: "a peek behind the fog of war; and, [redacted]", 6 February 2020) that Somni and Ziz saw themselves as being oppressed by people's hypocritical and manipulative social perceptions and behavior. Merely using the appropriate language ("Somni ... she", _&c._) protected her against threats from the Political Correctness police, but it actually didn't protect against threats from _them_. It was as if the mere fact that I wasn't optimizing for PR (lying about my agenda, as Somni said) was what made me not a direct enemy (although still a collaborator) in their eyes. diff --git a/content/drafts/people-evolved-social-control-mechanisms-and-rocks.md b/content/drafts/people-evolved-social-control-mechanisms-and-rocks.md index 175aa7f..dec7d59 100644 --- a/content/drafts/people-evolved-social-control-mechanisms-and-rocks.md +++ b/content/drafts/people-evolved-social-control-mechanisms-and-rocks.md @@ -557,22 +557,35 @@ I feared violence from the other inmates. I thought I could subtly leave clues t ----- -/2017/Mar/fresh-princess/ - -[28 February, I email Blanchard/Bailey/Hsu/Lawrence] +[TODO Vassar + * 22–23 February — + * he asks for my phone number + * I messed up by revealing secret info to Michael (I can say _that_ I messed up a secret, without revealing what the secret was) + * Michael says that he can easily keep committments; "I'm not being sloppy and accidentally defecting against the generalized optimization for secrecy, I'm actively at war with it." + * 28 February "Re: You're really bad at communicating!", nonprofit suggestion + * "I really think that fill documentation of your experience would be maximum leverage for your time"— my reply, "Too narcissitic!" (oops!) + * Between my checking and brokerage account, I have ~$97K to play with -[emailed Gunni on 26 Feb (still haven't gotten that inteview, 5 years later?!)] +7 March— +> As I recall, at the time, I was thinking that people may know far less or far more than I might have previously assumed by taking their verbal behavior literally with respect to what I think words mean: people have to gently test each other before really being able to speak the horrible truth that might break someone's self-narrative (thereby destroying their current personality and driving them insane, or provoking violence). I thought that you and Anna might be representatives of the "next level" of scientists guarding the human utility function by trying to produce epistemic technology within our totalitarian-state simulation world, and that I was "waking up" into that level by decoding messages (e.g., from the Mike Judge films that you recommended) and inferring things that most humans couldn't. +reply— +> What you were thinking is about right I think. But we still know that animals sleep. [another happy price offer to Yudkowsky on 2 March > That makes sense. Sorry for being boring; I'm kind of going through a "Having a nervous breakdown, suddenly understanding all the things Michael has been trying to tell me for eight years that I didn't understand at the time, and subsequently panicking and running around yelling at everyone because I'm terrified of the rationalist community degenerating into just another arbitrary Bay Area humanist cult when we were supposed to be the Second Scientific Revolution" phase of my intellectual development. Hopefully this is not too socially-disruptive! Michael said he thinks I'm doing good work?? ] +] + +[28 February, I email Blanchard/Bailey/Hsu/Lawrence] + +/2017/Mar/fresh-princess/ + +[emailed Gunni on 26 Feb (still haven't gotten that inteview, 5 years later?!)] + + [Blanchard Tweets my blog "again" on 3 March] -7 March— -> As I recall, at the time, I was thinking that people may know far less or far more than I might have previously assumed by taking their verbal behavior literally with respect to what I think words mean: people have to gently test each other before really being able to speak the horrible truth that might break someone's self-narrative (thereby destroying their current personality and driving them insane, or provoking violence). I thought that you and Anna might be representatives of the "next level" of scientists guarding the human utility function by trying to produce epistemic technology within our totalitarian-state simulation world, and that I was "waking up" into that level by decoding messages (e.g., from the Mike Judge films that you recommended) and inferring things that most humans couldn't. -reply— -> What you were thinking is about right I think. But we still know that animals sleep. 12 March— > You can tell that recent life events have made me more worried than I used to be about unFriendly/unaligned possibly-AI-assisted institutions being a threat to humane values long before an actual AI takeoff in however many decades diff --git a/notes/blanchards-dangerous-idea-email-review.md b/notes/blanchards-dangerous-idea-email-review.md index 919de6e..f10f2a4 100644 --- a/notes/blanchards-dangerous-idea-email-review.md +++ b/notes/blanchards-dangerous-idea-email-review.md @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ Remaining email timeline— +17 Feb: appointment reminder for outpatient on 21 Feb +22 Feb: Michael asks for my phone number + + + 9 Mar: me to Michael on "slowly coming around to you"—Okay, maybe confusing and hurting the feelings of the nice people doing their jobs is actually acceptable collateral damage in the war against the control system. Or, not a war. An endeavor to map what the control system is in detail, and publish the map on the internet. 11 Mar: me to Orion—Do you want to get a beer sometime next week? 12 Mar: me to Lauren Rath on getting around to reading Girard diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index a5e0d53..1094b6a 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -84,12 +84,11 @@ _ Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy far editing tier— _ psych ward vs. psych hospital -_ not doing much psychologizing because implausible to be simultaenously savvy enough to say this, and naive enough to not be doing so knowingly +_ "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 -_ Ruby fight: asking Anna, what is CfAR for?? _ "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] diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 596e6f6..de21748 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -380,4 +380,6 @@ 05/01/2023,121401,340 05/02/2023,121492,91 05/03/2023,122529,1037 -05/04/2023,, \ No newline at end of file +05/04/2023,123095,566 +05/05/2023,124497,1402 +05/06/2023,,