From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 23:12:14 +0000 (-0700) Subject: memoir: treachery, faith, and the great river § X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=ee42bec2ebfab650a87e8d546d81cd675ade472f;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git memoir: treachery, faith, and the great river § --- diff --git a/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md b/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md index 87fff2a..bf42efc 100644 --- a/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md +++ b/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ I'm not perfect, but I think I'm _pretty good_. Even if I don't agree with someo And somehow it _doesn't land_. It's like talking to a tape recorder that just endlessly repeats, "Ha-ha! [I can define a word any way I want](http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/)! You can't use that concept unless you can provide explicit necessary-and-sufficient conditions to classify a series of ever-more obscure and contrived edge cases!" -Although I do have a couple favorite edge cases of my own. I generally prefer not to involve named individuals in arguments, even public figures: it's unclassy. But having nothing left, I pull out a [photograph of Danielle Muscato](http://daniellemuscato.startlogic.com/uploads/3/4/9/3/34938114/2249042_orig.jpg). "Look," I say. "This is a photograph of a man. You can see it, too, right? Right?" +Although I do have a couple favorite edge cases of my own. I generally prefer not to involve named individuals in arguments, even public figures: it's unclassy. But having nothing left, I pull out a [photograph of Danielle Muscato](http://daniellemuscato.startlogic.com/uploads/3/4/9/3/34938114/2249042_orig.jpg). "Look," I say. "This is a photograph of a man. You can see it, too, right? Right?" And they say, "It's possible to be mistaken about cis people's genders, too." diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md index 1ae6e73..cc98f5f 100644 --- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md +++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md @@ -363,8 +363,7 @@ Michael said that me and Jess together have more moral authority] [TODO section: wrapping up with Scott; Kelsey; high and low Church https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/] - -[SECTION: treachery and faith +[SECTION: treachery, faith, and the great river I concluded that further email prosecution was not useful at this time. My revised Category War to-do list was: @@ -373,27 +372,45 @@ I concluded that further email prosecution was not useful at this time. My revis * Write up the long, engaging, depoliticized mathy version of the categories argument for _Less Wrong_ (which I thought might take a few months—I had a dayjob, and write slowly, and might need to learn some new math, which I'm also slow at). * _Then_ email the link to Scott and Eliezer asking for a signal-boost and/or court ruling. -Ben didn't think the categories argument was the most important thing for +Ben didn't think the mathematically precise categories argument was the most important thing for _Less Wrong_ readers to know about: a similarly careful explanation of why I've written off Scott, Eliezer, and the "rationalists" would be way more valuable. + +I could see the value he was pointing at, but something in me balked at the idea of _attacking my friends in public_ (Subject: "treachery, faith, and the great river (was: Re: DRAFTS: 'wrapping up; or, Orc-ham's razor' and 'on the power and efficacy of categories')"). + +Ben had previously written (in the context of the effective altruism movement) about how [holding criticism to a higher standard than praise distorts our collective map](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/honesty-and-perjury/#A_tax_on_criticism). + +He was obviously correct that this was a distortionary force relative to what ideal Bayesian agents would do, but I was worried that when we're talking about criticism of _people_ rather than ideas, the removal of the distortionary force would just result in an ugly war (and not more truth). Criticism of institutions and social systems _should_ be filed under "ideas" rather than "people", but the smaller-scale you get, the harder this distinction is to maintain: criticizing, say, "the Center for Effective Altruism", somehow feels more like criticizing Will MacAskill personally than criticizing "the United States" does, even though neither CEA nor the U.S. is a person. + +This is was I felt like I couldn't give up faith that [honest discourse _eventually_ wins](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/). Under my current strategy and consensus social norms, I could criticize Scott or Kelsey or Ozy's _ideas_ without my social life dissolving into a war of all against all, whereas if I were to give in to the temptation to flip a table and say, "Okay, now I _know_ you guys are just fucking with me," then I didn't see how that led anywhere good, even if they really _are_ just fucking with me. +Jessica explained what she saw as the problem with this. What Ben was proposing was _creating clarity about behavioral patterns_. I was saying that I was afraid that creating such clarity is an attack on someone. But if so, then my blog was an attack on trans people. What was going on here? +Socially, creating clarity about behavioral patterns _is_ construed as an attack and _can_ make things worse for someone: for example, if your livelihood is based on telling a story about you and your flunkies being the only sane truthseeking people in the world, then me demonstrating that you don't care about the truth when it's politically inconvenient for you is a threat to your marketing story and therefore a threat to your livelihood. As a result, it's easier to create clarity down power gradients than up power gradients: it was easy for me to blow the whistle on trans people's narcissistic delusions, but hard to blow the whistle on Eliezer Yudkowsky's narcissistic delusions. +But _selectively_ creating clarity down but not up power gradients just reinforces existing power relations—just like how selectively criticizing arguments with politically unfavorable conclusions only reinforces your current political beliefs. I shouldn't be able to get away with claiming that [calling non-exclusively-androphilic trans women delusional perverts](/2017/Mar/smart/) is okay on the grounds that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, but that calling out Alexander and Yudkowsky would be unjustified on the grounds of starting a war or whatever. If I was being cowardly or otherwise unprincipled, I should own that instead of generating spurious justifications. Jessica was on board with a project to tear down narcissistic fantasies in general, but not on board with a project that starts by tearing down trans people's narcissistic fantasies, but then emits spurious excuses for not following that effort where it leads. -(Subject: "treachery, faith, and the great river (was: Re: DRAFTS: 'wrapping up; or, Orc-ham's razor' and 'on the power and efficacy of categories')" +Somewhat apologetically, I replied that the distinction between truthfully, publicly criticizing group identities and _named individuals_ still seemed very significant to me? I would be way more comfortable writing [a scathing blog post about the behavior of "rationalists"](/2017/Jan/im-sick-of-being-lied-to/), than about a specific person not adhering to good discourse norms in an email conversation that they had good reason to expect to be private. I thought I was consistent about this: contrast my writing to the way that some anti-trans writers name-and-shame particular individuals. (The closest I had come was [mentioning Danielle Muscato as someone who doesn't pass](/2018/Dec/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018/#photo-of-danielle-muscato)—and even there, I admitted it was "unclassy" and done in desperation of other ways to make the point having failed.) I had to acknowledge that criticism of non-exclusively-androphilic trans women in general _implied_ criticism of Jessica, and criticism of "rationalists" in general _implied_ criticism of Yudkowsky and Alexander and me, but the extra inferential step and "fog of probability" seemed useful for making the speech act less of an attack? Was I wrong? +Michael said this was importantly backwards: less precise targeting is more violent. If someone said, "Michael Vassar is a terrible person", he would try to be curious, but if they don't have an argument, he would tend to worry more "for" them and less "about" them, whereas if someone said, "The Jews are terrible people", he saw that more serious threat to his safety. (And rationalists and trans women are exact sort of people that get targeted by the same people to target Jews.) ] -[SECTION: about monastaries— +[SECTION about monastaries (with Ben and Anna in April 2019) -"Getting the right answer in public on topic _X_ would be too expensive, so we won't do it" is _less damaging_ when the set of such Xes is _small_. It looked to me like we added a new forbidden topic in the last ten years, without rolling back any of the old ones. +I complained to Anna: "Getting the right answer in public on topic _X_ would be too expensive, so we won't do it" is _less damaging_ when the set of such Xes is _small_. It looked to me like we added a new forbidden topic in the last ten years, without rolling back any of the old ones. -"Reasoning in public is too expensive; reasoning in private is good enough" is _less damaging_ when there's some sort of _recruiting pipeline_ from the public into the monasteries: lure young smart people in with entertaining writing and shiny math, _then_ gradually undo their brainwashing once they've already joined your cult. (It had [worked on me](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/)!) +"Reasoning in public is too expensive; reasoning in private is good enough" is _less damaging_ when there's some sort of _recruiting pipeline_ from the public into the monasteries: lure young smart people in with entertaining writing and shiny math, _then_ gradually undo their political brainwashing once they've already joined your cult. (It had [worked on me](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/)!) I would be sympathetic to "rationalist" leaders like Anna or Yudkowsky playing that strategy if there were some sort of indication that they had _thought_, at all, about the pipeline problem—or even an indication that there _was_ an intact monastery somewhere. ] +[TODO: Jessica on corruption— + +> I am reminded of someone who I talked with about Zack writing to you and Scott to request that you clarify the category boundary thing. This person had an emotional reaction described as a sense that "Zack should have known that wouldn't work" (because of the politics involved, not because Zack wasn't right). Those who are savvy in high-corruption equilibria maintain the delusion that high corruption is common knowledge, to justify expropriating those who naively don't play along, by narratizing them as already knowing and therefore intentionally attacking people, rather than being lied to and confused. +] + + [TODO small section: concern about bad faith nitpicking— One reason someone might be reluctant to correct mistakes when pointed out, is the fear that such a policy could be abused by motivated nitpickers. It would be pretty annoying to be obligated to churn out an endless stream of trivial corrections by someone motivated to comb through your entire portfolio and point out every little thing you did imperfectly, ever. @@ -404,23 +421,17 @@ But, well, I thought I had made a pretty convincing that a lot of people are mak ] -[TODO: Jessica on corruption— - -> I am reminded of someone who I talked with about Zack writing to you and Scott to request that you clarify the category boundary thing. This person had an emotional reaction described as a sense that "Zack should have known that wouldn't work" (because of the politics involved, not because Zack wasn't right). Those who are savvy in high-corruption equilibria maintain the delusion that high corruption is common knowledge, to justify expropriating those who naively don't play along, by narratizing them as already knowing and therefore intentionally attacking people, rather than being lied to and confused. - -] - [TODO: after some bouncing off the posse, what was originally an email draft became a public _Less Wrong_ post, "Where to Draw the Boundaries?" (note, plural) * Wasn't the math overkill? * math is important for appeal to principle—and as intimidation https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/10/getting-eulered/ * four simulacra levels got kicked off here - * no politics! just philosophy! * I could see that I'm including subtext and expecting people to only engage with the text, but if we're not going to get into full-on gender-politics on Less Wrong, but gender politics is motivating an epistemology error, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do! I'm pretty constrained here! * I had already poisoned the well with "Blegg Mode" the other month, bad decision * We lost?! How could we lose??!!?!? ] + [TODO: my reluctance to write a memoir, displacement behavior Ben thought it was imporant on 30 Apr, 12 Aug , I confess to being stuck on 9 Nov I write more about the philosophy of language instead diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md index 3de7bef..07ff326 100644 --- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md +++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ _ Anna thought badmouthing Michael was OK by Michael's standards _ chat with "Wilhelm" during March 2019 minor psych episode _ explain the adversarial pressure on privacy norms _ 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) +_ mention the fact that Anna had always taken a "What You Can't Say" strategy people to consult before publishing, for feedback or right of objection— _ Iceman @@ -23,9 +24,14 @@ _ Ben/Jessica _ Scott _ Anna _ secret posse member -_ someone from Alicorner #drama as a hostile prereader +_ someone from Alicorner #drama as a hostile prereader (Swimmer?) +_ Kelsey (very briefly, just about her name) (probably don't bother with Michael?) +things to bring up in consultation emails— +_ dropping "and Scott" in Jessica's description of attacking narcissim +_ I think it's OK to copy my friend's language from emails; plagiarism instincts + -------