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

Comment author: a_different_face 27 May 2017 03:07:12PM 0 points [-]

Ah, thanks. Turns out I do know who you are and have already thought about the question of why (and to what extent) the community continues to interact with you to my satisfaction. (And yes, the throwaway's description of you is somewhat misleading, though mostly that's because, from their behavior, I would expect anyone they praise to be terrible without redeeming features).

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 28 May 2017 01:28:09AM 0 points [-]

have already thought about the question of why (and to what extent) the community continues to interact with you to my satisfaction.

For obvious reasons, I'm extremely curious to hear your analysis if you're willing to share. (Feel free to PM me.)

from their behavior, I would expect anyone they praise to be terrible without redeeming features

I don't think that's a good inference! (See the anti-halo effect and "Are Your Enemies Innately Evil?") Even if you think the throwaway's rudeness and hostility makes them terrible, does it really make sense for guilt-by-association to propagate to anyone the throwaway approves of for any reason?

(from the great-grandparent)

This is about behavior, not belief. [...] (for their proselytizing, not for their beliefs)

I think it would be less cruel and more honest to just advocate for punishing people who believe a claim, rather than to advocate for punishing people who argue for the claim while simultaneously insisting that this isn't a punishment for the belief. What would be the point of restricting speech if the goal isn't to restrict thought?

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 27 May 2017 01:41:15AM *  0 points [-]

I've had some thoughts and feelings in this vein; skepticism of trans and so forth. I hold that skepticism with skepticism, though, and I do not reach the point of telling the several extremely smart, perceptive, capable, and empathetic trans humans I know that they're e.g. dumb or wrong or sick or confused, when I have no inside view, and I think it's somewhat abhorrent and damaging to the social fabric to start these conversations in any but the most careful and respectful way. That being said, I'd be curious to hear more of the thoughts on the other side of the zeitgeist. If you feel like naming this valiant man in private, I commit to not sharing their name any farther than they themselves say is okay.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 27 May 2017 01:39:15PM 2 points [-]

If you feel like naming this valiant man in private, I commit to

Hi! 18239018038528017428 is almost certainly referring to me! (I would have predicted that you'd already have known this from Facebook, but apparently that prediction was wrong.)

somewhat abhorrent and damaging to the social fabric to start these conversations in any but the most careful and respectful way.

I tried that first. It turns out that it doesn't work: any substantive, clearly-worded claims just get adversarially defined as insufficiently respectful. I still had something incredibly important to protect (there is a word for the beautiful feeling at the center of my life, and the word is not woman; I want the right to use my word, and I want the right to do psychology in public and get the right answer), so I started trying other things.

Comment author: a_different_face 27 May 2017 03:01:17AM *  1 point [-]

This is about behavior, not belief.

I have not disputed "autogynephilic men with repressed femininity and a crossdressing fetish pretending to be women aren't actually women", though neither have I affirmed it.

Regardless, I still would not want you, personally, in any community I'm part of, because your behavior is bad. I'm not interested in debating this this; obviously we disagree on what acceptable behavior looks like. Whatever; different strokes for different folks - clearly this community is not for you, but also you seem to still be here, for some reason.

And I would still want to know who's going around trying to convince people of that statement, so that I could avoid them (for their proselytizing, not for their beliefs) and/or assess why the community has not yet shunned them. (Obviously you can shun the community while it simultaneously shuns you. These are not mutually exclusive.)

So, again, I still want to know who you're talking about. Who are you talking about?

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 27 May 2017 12:44:27PM 1 point [-]

Hi! 18239018038528017428 is almost certainly talking about me! My detailed views are probably more nuanced and less objectionable than you might infer from the discussion in this thread? But to help you assess for yourself why "the community" (whatever that is) has not yet shunned me, maybe start with this comment (which also contains links to my new gender blog).

In response to comment by Raemon on Change
Comment author: Dagon 09 May 2017 02:14:05AM *  0 points [-]

No, the comment was spot-on. This has no place on LW. Fake comic-rationalism and ridiculous over-literal interpretations do not assist anyone in understanding anything.

More specifically: this link should be removed because the linked post pretends to misunderstand an interaction in a way that demeans someone not participating in the discussion.

edit: it's possible (even likely, from reading other parts of that blog) that the lack of understanding wasn't fake. Even so, there needs to be an acknowledgement that the confusion was due to atypical social understanding, not some intent to deceive or underlying ambiguity that requires any discussion.

In response to comment by Dagon on Change
Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 10 May 2017 11:07:52PM 1 point [-]

in a way that demeans someone not participating in the discussion

How is this relevant? Like, if I have a map that I claim reflects the territory, and you're saying that my map demeans someone who's not here, that doesn't say anything about whether the map predicts features of the territory that, in fact, aren't there.

atypical social understanding, not [...] underlying ambiguity

This is kind of mind-projection-fallacious. Situations that look unambiguous if your expectations are already calibrated to them can be a lot harder to decipher for people with atypical social understanding, like foreigners, children, or (in this case) otherwise-mostly-ordinary adults recovering from a psychotic break.

In response to comment by Raemon on Change
Comment author: SquirrelInHell 08 May 2017 04:25:42PM 2 points [-]

Fair enough, I was trying to be humorous about this but it seems it was taken seriously.

My actual critique is something like "failing to grasp and then feeling smug about figuring out something that is so common-sense-obvious suggests some deep underlying problems with social adaptation, that the author is probably aware of and it would be rude to point them out directly, and there is little benefit to the public from exposing this particular case. it would be more interesting to analyze what made this type of thinking appear and seem subjectively normal in the first place"

There you go

In response to comment by SquirrelInHell on Change
Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 10 May 2017 10:54:13PM 1 point [-]

and it would be rude to point them out directly

I don't think it's rude! Go ahead, stab me with the truth!

it would be more interesting to analyze what made this type of thinking appear and seem subjectively normal in the first place

I can see why you might think that, but unfortunately, it's actually not very interesting (recovering from stress- and sleep-deprivation-induced nervous breakdown back in Feburary and trauma of subsequent involuntary "hospitalization" (I actually think the word imprisonment is more appropriate), phenomenology and family history suggesting an underlying disposition towards schizophrenia-like problems).

In response to Change
Comment author: SquirrelInHell 07 May 2017 10:25:11AM *  1 point [-]

-1

I understood the situation and I feel embarrassed about your post even though I don't know you.

With your best interests in mind, I advise you to:

  1. Delete the post before too many people see it

  2. Bang your head against the wall and think deeply about your life

In response to comment by SquirrelInHell on Change
Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 07 May 2017 03:01:27PM 2 points [-]

Delete the post before too many people see it

Seems kind of anti-social? I'd rather read personal blogs containing the posts that the author thought worth posting at the time, rather than blogs that have been post-publication-selected to exclude the posts that commenters pointed out make the author look bad, which suggests that I should extend the same courtesy to my readers.

think deeply about your life

Working on it, thanks!

[Link] Change

1 Zack_M_Davis 06 May 2017 09:17PM
Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 03 April 2017 08:10:26PM 7 points [-]

to buy a seat on OpenAI’s board

I wish we lived in a world where the Open Philanthropy Project page could have just said it like that, instead of having to pretend that no one knows what "initiates a partnership between" means.

Comment author: Elo 18 March 2017 09:20:47PM 12 points [-]

history is written by the people who write it down. if you want to change history; write something different down.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 18 March 2017 09:26:19PM 5 points [-]

I agree! Indeed, your comment is a response to the something different that I wrote down! If I cared more about correcting this particular historical error, I would do more research and write something more down in a place that would get more views than this Less Wrong Discussion thread. Unfortunately, I'm kind of busy, so the grandparent is all that I bothered with!

Comment author: James_Miller 18 March 2017 07:31:27PM 6 points [-]

"Elsewhere on the internet, another fearsomely intelligent group of thinkers prepared to assault the secular religions of the establishment: the neoreactionaries, also known as #NRx."

"Neoreactionaries appeared quite by accident, growing from debates on LessWrong.com, a community blog set up by Silicon Valley machine intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. The purpose of the blog was to explore ways to apply the latest research on cognitive science to overcome human bias, including bias in political thought and philosophy."

"LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing."

This article currently has 32,760 Facebook shares.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 18 March 2017 09:00:05PM 11 points [-]

But, but, this is not historically accurate! I'm sure there's a much greater overlap between Less Wrong readers and Unqualified Reservations readers than you would expect between an arbitrary pairing of blogs, but the explanation for that has to look something like "Yudkowsky and Moldbug both attract a certain type of contrarian nerd, and so you get some links from one community to the other from the few contrarian nerds that are part of both." The causality doesn't flow from us!

View more: Next