LESSWRONG
LW

All of Lavender's Comments + Replies

Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
Lavender*1713

I'm an openly trans person in the Rationalist community and I want to go on record here saying:

Writing a 21,000 word essay about how you've been suppressing your gender dysphoria since you were a kid and posting it on LessWrong is not a healthy way of addressing your gender dysphoria.

And btw in one of the blog posts Zach links in this post, they call their transgender impulses as "the beautiful feeling at the center of my life."

This essay has a lot of self-hate in it which is self-destructive and although I respect your Freedom of Speech and Bodily Autonomy I think it would be unwise for anyone to emulate Zach. 

Reply
JohnWittle2810

Can you not even do him the favor of pretending to model his life story as an accurate retelling of events? If his lived experience doesn't include any gender dysphoria, and he spends 21 thousand words describing how the social pressure to assume gender dysphoria in cases where it might not actually be present has destroyed his sanity and ruined his social relationships, it feels incredibly rude and frankly bizarre for you to respond by telling him that this is all just a symptom of his gender dysphoria. I would almost go so far as to call it hateful.

Reply
FeepingCreature173

I don't think it's that anyone is proposing to "suppress" dysphoria or "emulate" Zach. Rather, for me, I'm noticing that Zach is putting into words and raising in public things that I've thought and felt secretly for a long time.

Reply
You Don't Exist, Duncan
Lavender20

Jeez... this was, somehow relatable.

I wonder if autistics in general tend to experience this.

Reply
4Said Achmiz
Alright. Well, generalize my advice, then: leave the social circles where that sort of thing is at all commonplace. If that requires physical moving cities, do that. (For example, I live in New York City. I don’t recall ever hearing the term “tech-bro” used in a real conversation, except perhaps as an ironic mention… maybe not even that.)
7Said Achmiz
This is a fine desire to have. I share it. And herein lies your problem. You have, I surmise, encountered many terrible people in your life. This sucks. The solution to this is simple, and it’s one I have advocated in the past and continue to advocate: Be friends with people who are awesome. Avoid people who suck. Let me assure, you in the strongest terms, that “rationalists” are not the only people in the world who are awesome. I, for one, have a wonderful group of friends, who are “interested in rationality” in, perhaps, the most tangential way; and some, not at all. My friends are never “rude or condescending” to me; I can be, and am, as “rational” around them as I wish; and the idea that my close friends would not be ok with curiosity and skepticism is inconceivable. It is even perfectly fine and well if you select your personal friends on the basis of some combination of intelligence, curiosity, skepticism, “rationality”, etc. But this is not at all the same thing as making a “rationality community” out of Less Wrong & co—not even close. Finally: For God’s sake, get out of the Bay Area. Seriously. Things are not like this in the rest of the world.
Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism
Lavender60

I've always thought saying that babies are atheists is like saying rocks are atheists.

Reply
Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism
Lavender30

This triad was missed:

"Muslims are terrorists!" / "Islam is a religion of peace." / "Religion is problematic in general but Islam is the worst and I can back that claim up with statistics I read on Sam Harris' blog."

Reply
4ChristianKl
Gwern's TERRORISM IS NOT ABOUT TERROR seems to me like a better candidate for the third.
0username2
For the third slot I'd say "religious squabbles are the wrong problem to be thinking about".
-2ChristianKl
If I say: "You don't say what you mean with they" then there nothing overconfident about that statement. It simply shows that I know of multiple possible interpretations, while you might or might not be conscious of them. If you are you could specify your argument. Scientific thinking is to seek for disconfirmation of claims. The fact that vague claims can be read in a way that's not disconfirmation doesn't mean that it's good to read them that way. Being to vague to be wrong is bad.
-4ChristianKl
You don't say what you mean with they. They fit the criteria you stated in the opening post. Engaging with reality would help formulatting better criteria. Saying the gym isn't good because you can't teach everyone calculus is not engaging with the issues of the gym.
-1ChristianKl
Should we develop technology X? has a lot to do with: What do we expect the likely effects of the adoption of technology X happen to be?. Thinking that the two questions have nothing to do with each other is highly problematic. I don't think that the discussions about terraforming Mars on LW are done by people who haven't thought about the existent technical options for terraforming Mars. The problem is not that you speculate but that you ignore what we know as a society about the various interventions for the problem while you speculate.
1Lumifer
Sure. Since we're imagining things, technology can give you any body you want and it doesn't even have to be human. But that's pretty obvious, so I'm wondering what's the point that you want to make. There are a whole lot of background assumptions here, beyond assuming that body upgrades are available. You are assuming that somebody can allow or deny them. You are assuming that this somebody cares about diversity of body types (in which case they might incentivise you to grow a couple of extra limbs or switch to a radial-symmetry body plan instead of staying fat and flabby, by the way). You are assuming these upgrades are a sufficiently big deal so that you don't want to do one each time you get bored or your girlfriend changes. Etc., etc.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender60

You didn't say anything about technology not having "unwanted health effects" before.

That was supposed to be implied. Allow me to quote Facing The Intelligence Explosion by Luke Muehlhauser:

One day, my friend Niel asked his virtual assistant in India to find him a bike he could buy that day. She sent him a list of bikes for sale from all over the world. Niel said, “No, I need one I can buy in Oxford today; it has to be local.” So she sent him a long list of bikes available in Oxford, most of them expensive. Niel clarified that he wanted an i

... (read more)
Reply
1ChristianKl
Implying that new technology generally comes without risk or sideeffects is typical for transhumanist writting but it's also badly wrong. Most new technology has risk or sideeffects at the time it get's adopted. I didn't say baseless assertion but baseless speculation given that you don't seem to have covered the basic research of looking into the issues surrounded the existing technology, your speculation about future technology is per definition baseless.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender20

Are you saying that technology to enhance the appearance of the male body without having unwanted health effects is so implausible that it will never happen? Because over the long term (200-1000 years from now) I prefer to avoid saying "technology X will never happen" unless there's an actual law of physics that says so. Remember that this is just speculation.

Reply
0ChristianKl
You didn't say anything about technology not having "unwanted health effects" before. That's like saying: "Remember that I don't know what I'm talking about". There a variety of knowledge available about the effects of various technological options to increase muscle mass. The fact that your comments are not inspired by that empirical data but by baseless speculation is what I'm criticising. Productive conversations about healthcare technology are those that are grounded in empiric reality.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender20

Yeah I know it's a shitty argument I admit it.

I fully understand what you are trying to say. The problem is that thinking about the issue that way is inproductive. You don't engage with the actual knowledge we have about making people more fit.

I see. But does this imply that we shouldn't use transhuman technology to make people more muscular? If we could use such technology, why wouldn't we?

Reply
-1ChristianKl
That's besides the point on many levels. There isn't a clear line between existing technology and transhuman technology. The technology that we have that produces the effect of a muscular body the fasted is steroid hormones. We outlaw their usages for purposes of appearance enchancement. To me it sounds like you haven't thought about the subject to have an informed opinion if you simply ask "why wouldn't we?". There are a lot of practical issues that come with using technology like steroid hormones to make men look more attractive that you don't think about if you think about magical transhuman technology the way your initial post framed the issue. You argue that we are wrong to outlaw the usage of steroid homones to allow men to look more attractive but you don't provide any arguments towards that conclusion. If you say you want something that's even more transhuman than artificial hormones we are likely talking about something like gene therapy. That means you get even more medical risks than you get with steroid hormones.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender-10

When I was between the ages of 14 and 20 I was 135 pounds no matter what I ate, and I didn't watch my diet at all. I imagine I could have gained weight if I "tried hard enough" but it would have involved eating obscene amounts of sugary and fatty foods. We're talking about an "epic meal time" everyday style diet.

Reply
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender00

I'm not new to lesswrong. I'm active on the Facebook group and have read most of the sequences.

What makes you believe that's true? Leaving out people with real disabilities for the sake of the discussion.

My mom is a doctor, and she says genetics are the biggest factor in what people look like. I know that's not a perfect source but it's worth something EDIT: Yeah I know that's a really shitty argument, but it's not so much an argument as it is a clarification of where I got the idea. But anyway, doesn't it seem a bit far fetched to say that anybody can... (read more)

Reply
-2Lumifer
They are the biggest factor in what people look like by default, if they don't apply effort to change.
0ChristianKl
I fully understand what you are trying to say. The problem is that thinking about the issue that way is inproductive. You don't engage with the actual knowledge we have about making people more fit. In the LW context "my mum told me" is not a good argument. There's a reason why "appeal to authority" is generally considered to be a logical fallacy. The importance is not how the idea sounds but what we know about the effects of various interventions. But even if we look at the way the idea sounds, if a hunter gatherer can't build muscle he likely won't procreate. That means there are strong evolutionary pressures for humans to be able to build muscles. There aren't similar pressures for learning calculus. I haven't made that claim. It's not simply a matter of working hard. It's about training in and efficient way an eating the right diet.
3entirelyuseless
"Anyone can become muscular if they just work hard enough" sounds to me a lot like "anyone can become fat if they just eat enough." Both of those seem pretty plausible to me, even though admittedly it is harder for some than for others, in both cases.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender00

Original comment edited to account for this objection.

Reply
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender20

The gym is not nearly as powerful as the technology I'm talking about. I'm talking about biotechnology / transhuman technology. Men given the genetic short end of the stick can't reasonably expect to look fit no matter how much they work out, unless they don't have a job or any time consuming responsibilities. And no I'm not a jealous fat guy. I'm not athlete, but I'm in decent shape.

And what I'm talking about here is upgrading the average man's attractiveness so that it's on par with the average woman's attractiveness. Nobody complains that all women look... (read more)

Reply
2Lumifer
Yes, but the gym has a decisive advantage: it's real and the transhuman technology is imaginary. That's flat out false. Men given the genetic short end of the stick cannot be expected to win the Olympics. But just looking fit a very low bar. By the way, the ripped look is mostly a function of low (<10%) body fat, not of how much you lift. Which aren't all that diverse if you're talking about looks.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender00

Are you suggesting that my scenario would make men look fake or make them all look the same? Because if you can't imagine what I suggested without that happening it implies at least one of two things:

  1. I described it poorly.
  2. You need a better imagination.
Reply
0Lumifer
First, I would like to suggest that "using technology to upgrade every man's body" is available right now. People usually call it "going to the gym". As to whether I need a better imagination, let me quote you Eric Hoffer: When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender10

Well people dislike PUAs because they see them as emotionally manipulative and dishonest, (which is sometimes true) and I don't think problem would be present here.

Reply
Interpersonal Entanglement
Lavender-10

Thought: Something we could do (eventually) to make the world a better place is to use technology to upgrade every man's body. Make most men taller, more muscular, leaner, etc. Men who currently have relatively less attractive bodies will get a larger upgrade than men who have relatively more attractive bodies to make it fair. But make sure there is still variety in what men's bodies look like.

Do this until the average man is as sexually attractive to the average women as the average woman is to the average man. That would solve a lot of problems. And I do... (read more)

Reply
-4ChristianKl
I see that you are new on LW. LW is a place that's about actually thinking critically and not simply talk about magic pill interventions. The gym does what you were talking about. It might not have been what you where thinking about. What makes you believe that's true? Leaving out people with real disabilities for the sake of the discussion.
3ChristianKl
We have that technology. It's called "The Gym". People who are already muscular gain less additional attractiveness from it.
3Good_Burning_Plastic
I largely agree, but: You don't even need that much technology -- part of the reason why the average man is less attractive to the average woman than vice versa is that the former isn't even trying. Given the backlash against PUA I wouldn't be entirely sure of that, even though improving appearance might be less taboo than improving behavior.
-1Lumifer
"The other girl is a Brandy. Her date is a Clint. Brandy and Clint are both popular, off-the-shelf models. When white.trash high school girls are going on a date in the Metaverse, they invariably run down to the computer-games section of the local Wal-Mart and buy a copy of Brandy. The user can select three breast sizes: improbable, impossible, and ludicrous. Brandy has a limited repertoire of facial expressions: cute and pouty; cute and sultry; perky and interested; smiling and receptive; cute and spacy ... Clint is just the male counterpart of Brandy. He is craggy and handsome and has an extremely limited range of facial expressions." -- Neal Stephenson, Snowcrash
Ideas for rationality slogans?
Lavender60

Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence.

Slightly more than 5 words:

The facts don't know whose side their on.

Every cause wants to be a cult.

Reply
0Gleb_Tsipursky
The first set of rationality-themed merchandise is ready! Thanks for your suggestions :-)
0Gleb_Tsipursky
I like "The facts don't know whose side their on," but it's a bit long - is there a way to shorten the idea to get it across effectively?
4Bobertron
I really like "The facts don't know whose side they're on", though the other two might require less wrong knowledge.
No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know
Lavender00

Yes I get the difference, but the deal with "no one knows what science doesn't know" is that someone could say there are exceptions we don't know about or things we overlooked, just like Newton overlooked things that Einstein discovered.

Reply
No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know
Lavender00

Can this article be used to defend to idea that one day we may do things we currently believe are "physically impossible" such as build perpetual motion machines or alter physical constants?

Reply
0g_pepper
No, I don't think so. Perpetual motion machines are not "impossible" because we simply do not know how to create them; in fact we know that they are impossible because they would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Using Evolution for Marriage or Sex
Lavender10

I upvoted this post simply because I appreciate the OP having the courage to touch on a taboo topic.

Also I love this paragraph:

When I say "A guy does D when G happens" please read: "There are statistically significant, or theoretically significant reasons from social endocrinology, or social and evolutionary psychology to believe that under circumstances broadly similar to G, human males, on average, will be inclined towards behaving in manners broadly similar to the D way. Also, most tests are made with western human males, tests are less

... (read more)
Reply
Conversation Halters
Lavender00

I notice I'm confused.

I literally don't know what it means to say "The definition of words are not arbitrary." I suspect either that I lack the background knowledge to understand this sentence, or ironically Eliezer and I may have a different definition of the word arbitrary.

Furthermore, I don't know what the implications are of what he's trying to say. Is he saying that language is not a system of symbols? Is he saying that every word has a "correct" definition?

Reply
1Chrysophylax
Read the linked post. The main reasons we can't define words however we like are because that leads to not cutting reality at the joints and because humans are bad at avoiding hidden inferences. Not being a biologist, I can't assign an ideal definition to "duck", but I do know that calling lobsters ducks is clearly unhelpful to reasoning. For a more realistic example, note the way Reactionaries (Michael Anissimov, Mencius Moldbug and such) use "demotist" to associate things that are clearly not similar.
2kpreid
This but with different quantifiers: some possible definitions are incorrect, as discussed in the article linked in that paragraph. If there's a missing qualifier here then it's “in practice”. I can perfectly well randomly select an element of the power set of all things which could possibly be referred to by nouns, and declare that that is the definition of “flutzpah”, and that would be an arbitrarily defined word — which no one would ever have a reason to use to actually communicate with.
Why do people ____?
Lavender00

I've had intrusive thoughts too and I've wondered how common they are. Thank you for letting me know that they are something most people experience. I would share some on here, but they're pretty embarrassing.

Reply
Lavender00

I’m starting a new biotechnology university program in September. In order to prepare myself I want to get better at math. So far I know grade 12 level functions, vectors, calculus and statistics, but I have never taken a university level math course.

Problem is, most traditional math education focuses on increasing your math knowledge. I am more interested in increasing my math talent. Very different things. I want to be better at understanding math concepts quickly and figuring out the answers to questions I haven’t encountered before. I want to increase ... (read more)

Reply
Open thread, January 25- February 1
Lavender00

Well I know I won't be around a computer 24/7, and I'd like something to explain it if I'm out and about. Although I suppose I could use a couple examples that I can just memorize, like strawman arguments and ad hominum.

Reply
Open thread, January 25- February 1
Lavender20

Does anyone have a simple, easily understood definition of "logical fallacy" that can be used to explain the concept to people who have never heard of it before?

I was trying to explain the idea to a friend a few days ago but since I didn't have a definition I had to show her www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com. She understood the concept quickly, but it would be much more reliable and eloquent to actually define it.

Reply
0IlyaShpitser
I don't think this is so simple to explain, because to really understand logical fallacies you need to understand what a proof is. Not a lot of people understand what a proof is.
Qiaochu_Yuan110

She understood the concept quickly, but it would be much more reliable and eloquent to actually define it.

You think she would've understood the concept even more quickly if you had a definition? I think people underestimate the value of showing people examples as a way of communicating a concept (and overestimate the value of definitions).

Reply
1pragmatist
It's a bad concept, at least the way it's traditionally used in introductory philosophy classes. It encourages people to believe that certain patterns of argument are always wrong, even though there are many cases in which those patterns do constitute good (non-deductive) arguments. Instructors will often try to account for these cases by carving out exceptions ("argument from authority is OK if the authority is actually a recognized expert on the topic at hand"), but if you have to carve out loads of exceptions in order to get a concept to make sense, chances are you're using a crappy concept. Ultimately, I can't find any unifying thread to "logical fallacy" other than "commonly seen bad argument", but even that isn't a very good definition because there are many commonly seen bad arguments that aren't usually considered logical fallacies (the base rate fallacy, for instance). Also, by coming up with cute names to label entire patterns of argument, and by failing to carve out enough exceptions, most expositions of "logical fallacy" end up labeling many good arguments as fallacious. So I guess my advice would be to stop using the concept altogether, rather than trying to explicate it. If you encounter a particular instance of a "logical fallacy" that you think is a bad argument, explain why that particular argument doesn't work, rather than just saying "that's an argumentum ad populum" or something like that.
1fubarobfusco
A logical fallacy is an argument that doesn't hold together. All of its assumptions might be true, but the conclusion doesn't actually follow from them. "Fallacy" is used to mean a few different things, though. Formal fallacies happen when you try to prove something with a logical argument, but the structure of your argument is broken. For instance, "All weasels are furry; Spot is furry; therefore Spot is a weasel." Any argument of this "shape" will have the same problem — regardless of whether it's about weasels, politics, or Java programming. Informal fallacies happen when you try to convince people of your conclusion through arguments that are irrelevant. A lot of informal fallacies try to argue that a statement is true because of something else — like its popularity, or the purported opinion of a smart person; or that its opponents are villains.
1Jayson_Virissimo
To a "regular person", I might say something like "a logical fallacy is a form of reasoning that seems good to many humans, but actually isn't very good".
Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You
Lavender10

I believe this article illustrates the greatest cause of conflict on the internet.

Reply