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

Comment author: Lumifer 22 November 2014 02:05:09AM *  1 point [-]

It is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like.

Oookay then. Let's look at my post. Here it is in its entirety:

SJ = Social Justice, a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.

Oh! You said "it is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement" and here it is:

SJ = Social Justice

and then you said "and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like" and here it is:

a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.

So, remind me again what are you complaining about?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 22 November 2014 02:11:41AM 0 points [-]

The objection is the phrasing of social justice as a " framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else." I'm in agreement that to a large extent that isn't an inaccurate descriptor for much of passes for SJ. The mind-killing problem is to use that as the definition.

Comment author: HBDfan 20 November 2014 06:00:58PM -1 points [-]

It has robust answers that hold true. Lesswrong needs to use rationality to speak out against the social justice warriors more. We need more rationalists to explain Gamergate and other initiatives. SSC and Ozy come out in favor of Gamergate and Eron Gjoni for example. Politics need not be the mind killer with showing sufficient working.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 22 November 2014 01:52:28AM 3 points [-]

It has robust answers that hold true.

Please expand. Please also expand how the rest of your post has anything to do with what is generally taken to mean "neoreaction".

Comment author: Lumifer 21 November 2014 05:53:09PM 4 points [-]

actively defining a political movement to be something that they would not self-identify as is heavily in the mind-killing territory.

I disagree. I don't see why a useful definition of a political movement has to match their self-identification.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2014 06:08:47PM 0 points [-]

Becuause that's not a definition, that's a description, and it builds into the situation a No-True-Scotsman situation into any dispute. It is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 November 2014 04:31:54PM 3 points [-]

Oh, that's not the "most uncharitable" definition by far. I can easily come up with much worse.

I happen to think my definition is correct and I don't see any particular reason to be extra-charitable about it.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2014 05:35:39PM 0 points [-]

There's no need to be "extra-charitable" but it is helpful to give unbiased definitions of a group. If you want to then say "and I think that what they really act like is X" that's a distinct step, but actively defining a political movement to be something that they would not self-identify as is heavily in the mind-killing territory.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 24 October 2014 02:02:18AM 2 points [-]

violence is correlated with temperature.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2014 04:20:33PM *  1 point [-]

Relevant article. Less technical summary by the authors of that paper here. There is some controversy about what the underlying causal mechanism is. See this article.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 20 October 2014 04:36:38PM *  4 points [-]

What about the methodology of starting with news reports? These have strong biases that probably change by time. And how did they locate decades old news reports? A recency bias is to be expected. (Added: Duwe has a paper about this!)

Their definition is pretty reasonable, except for the part where they make tons of exceptions. The examples they gave of the exceptions that they made sound intuitive, but what about all the exceptions that they didn't talk about? Why didn't they include the Ridgewood Postal murders? Since they don't actually have a consistent rule, it's impossible to decide if they applied it to this case, or if the actual criterion was that it was too old.

Added: I tried spot-checking a few examples from Duwe's book against the MJ list. On pages 115-116 he lists 12 high profile workplace mass shootings. In addition to Ridgewood, they omit Alan Winterbourne and Willie Woods, both very straight-forward examples. If they miss these high profile examples, why would you expect them to reliably find others?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2014 04:11:37PM 1 point [-]

Thinking about this more, I think you are correct. The data is much too spotty to make a strong conclusion.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 November 2014 09:39:09PM 2 points [-]

SJ = Social Justice, a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2014 04:03:59PM 1 point [-]

It isn't rationalism to to give the most uncharitable definition of a movement or group possible.

Comment author: advancedatheist 18 November 2014 04:57:58PM *  2 points [-]

No, that just means that these women haven't thought very hard about what living a really long time could mean. Those science fiction writers in the last century who postulated the return of traditional social structures in high-tech societies might have come closer to the reality of life in "the future" than they imagined, and some Neoreactionaries have pointed this out. Refer to this podcast by Richard Spencer, for example:

http://www.radixjournal.com/vanguard-radio/2014/8/15/archeo-futurist-messiah

Comment author: JoshuaZ 19 November 2014 01:14:53AM 9 points [-]

I'm puzzled by your focus on women. Many men probably don't want to live in a patriarchal society either. I certainly don't.

That's aside from the fact that this really has very little to do with the subject at hand. There's a distinct question of what you expect will happen and what one should try to make happen.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 October 2014 06:02:30PM 2 points [-]

What is unpersuasive about the responses to Mother Jones?

They're exactly what I thought when I read it. Actually, I had a more specific thought: what changed in 2011 is that they started collecting data live, rather than through archives. Of course, rejecting a data set because it was produced by hand in an ad hoc manner does not give you a replacement data set and thus does not produce an actual analysis. But the Reason link suggests Duwe's data as a replacement. Since he starts with official data and only uses media coverage to fill in details, he isn't subject to temporal bias.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 October 2014 02:55:19PM 0 points [-]

What is unpersuasive about the responses to Mother Jones?

I agree that Duwe's point is the closest thing there to a decent argument against MJ's data. But I think the accusation that there data is "cherrypicked" is not reasonably supported. The entire paragraph in Siegel's piece where he argues for this is essentially ignoring that what they are using is what fits closely with the common intuition of what is a mass shooting. The only one which one could plausibly take out of that set is Fort Hood but it doesn't alter the data very much.

Most of Siegel's points are correct but not relevant to the question of increases of shootings. For example, he's correct that there's a serious measuring issue with whether shootings are stopped by others with weapons, and he's also correct that even if the trend identified by MJ is accurate it is still a tiny fraction of total crimes and will remain so, but that's not actually relevant to evaluating the central claim.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 October 2014 05:51:46PM 2 points [-]

Your opinion about newsmedia was correct the whole time. This led you to ignore Mother Jones in 2012, but still your beliefs about the trends were correct for most of the time you held them.

What is the correct course of action?
Ignoring the newsmedia is clearly optimal. In particular paying attention to MJ writing on the same data set in 2012 would have produced the belief that spree killings had increased in 2006, an error according to your current MJ beliefs, though of course MJ doesn't notice the change. Maybe if you wait a few years, they'll convince you that nothing changed in 2011, only in 2015.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 October 2014 02:45:19PM 0 points [-]

I don't think so. I had read similar articles in the past and was generally unpersuaded.

View more: Next