Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

conchis comments on The Third Alternative - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 May 2007 11:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: conchis 07 May 2007 08:34:34PM 0 points [-]

Jeremy: I clearly misunderstood what you meant by "an internalised sense of morality". Though I still suspect you're wrong about the contradiction, that could be because I still don't really understand the way in which you're using the phrase. In any event, it's clear that my "cheap shot" call was way off, and I apologise.

Michael V: Depends whether TGGP is making an epistemic claim about his/her personal knowledge of morality, or whether he/she is claiming that that moral statements are not true in general. In the latter case, I think it would be standard to say he/she doesn't believe in morality.

Anyone else want to spearhead a movement to come up with a gender neutral pronoun?

Comment author: ohdotoh 19 September 2009 06:04:39PM 5 points [-]

'They' is a gender neutral pronoun and like Schrodinger's cat it shows the superposition of he and she in an unknown state. Until observed, the human is simultaneously male and female.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 September 2009 09:55:33PM *  1 point [-]

It's ugly, though. "They" is a plural. I just used it in my last post, but I didn't like doing it; now it is gender-sensitive, but ungrammatical.

I also used the phrase "a new man", because "a new person" doesn't have the history of use that invokes the noble/creepy feelings that I wanted to communicate. I couldn't think of any gender-neutral way around it.

If we took a vote, I'd vote for "it". It also has a nice, dehumanizing ring to it, which would probably be good, given our anthropic tendencies.

Comment author: Johnicholas 19 September 2009 10:01:53PM 7 points [-]

I can't help linking Hofstadter's very funny and apropos "Person Paper":

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

Wikipedia points out that the singular or indeterminate-number "they" has a pretty long history in the english language - Shakespeare used it, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 September 2009 10:06:23PM 3 points [-]

When you are speaking of people, "anthropic" is the right stance!

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 September 2009 10:13:44PM 2 points [-]

What an anthropic thing to say!

"Anthropic" means human-centric. I want humans to think of "people" as a more general term, not as a synonym for "human".

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 September 2009 10:15:27PM 0 points [-]

People are human.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 September 2009 10:23:22PM 2 points [-]

That's not a statement with a true/false value; it's a philosophical/ethical assertion.

In any case, regardless of whether that statement is extensionally true at present, it will not be in the future, and we need to prepare for that future in advance.

Additionally, philosophy routinely finds it useful to ask hypothetical questions. Equipping ourselves with mental categories that make us incapable of comprehending hypotheticals about people from most possible worlds will lead to error.

Comment author: Toddling 22 January 2013 04:23:23AM 2 points [-]

This is interesting, because I've never found 'they' particlulary ugly or awkward. I do like 'it', though I suspect that the 'dehumanizing ring' to it would disappear if it were regularly used to refer to humans. The main reason I use 'they' instead is because, as far as I'm aware, it's accepted by a reasonably large contingent of authorities on the language as grammatically correct. I also find it less awkward than 'he/she' (I never know whether to say "he-she" or "he or she"), and popular alternatives like 'zie' (of which there are too many variations, none of which is used often enough that a general audience will not require an explanation). I think the main problem we'd have no matter what we chose would be effectively encouraging widespread use, and I don't have any very good ideas on how to do this.

Comment author: themusicgod1 09 March 2013 04:05:01PM 0 points [-]

Earlier on in internet history there was a movement to make 'tse' a gender-neutral pronoun. It didn't take, but I still use it.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 09 March 2013 05:41:37PM 1 point [-]

See also Spivak pronoun.

Comment author: themusicgod1 11 March 2013 03:57:46AM *  -1 points [-]

Or alternatively you could go more recent & use the Baltimore dialect and use 'Yo' as a gender-neutral pronoun.

(ref: Stotko, E. and Troyer, M. "A new gender-neutral pronoun in Baltimore, Maryland: A preliminary study." American Speech, Vol. 82. No. 3, Fall 2007, p. 262.)

Comment author: Omegaile 11 March 2013 05:56:45AM 0 points [-]

Someone in Sweden apparently did