A bar with extremely valuable and special table estate, where tables are not assigned but rather bargoers sit wherever is open; and where it is at least a little unpleasant to be at the special table estate. 

Now that I’ve written that condition, I’m not sure this exists outside of my example? But here is my example.

There is a bar in Minneapolis where the outside portion is open all winter. They have tables, at standing/stool height, with fires inset into the middle of the tables for warmth. There are 6 such tables, and 500 bargoers. But most of the people are inside, and the tables are never packed (cuz it’s cold, and because it’s an arcade bar and there are no arcade games outside).

If a fire table is free, you sit at it. People will come and ask if they can sit at it too. They’ll feel obligated to talk to you, since they’re at your table.

If a fire table has people, but there’s space (which is typically true), go and ask if you can stand there. The answer is always yes. Once you get situated, say “so how’s it going?” or “what are your names?”

My buddy and I used to do this a lot and it always worked. I once had a flagging date around the corner from the place, I liked her but we had run out of conversation, so I brought her there and we sat at a fire table and within 20 minutes the entire management staff of a retail store at the mall (??) was at our table talking with us.

>I am bad at most forms of normie social interaction and I have no clue how to break into a conversation anywhere else.

I feel like this too. But I get sick of intellectualism sometimes, so I enjoy playing free poker at a dive bar. It’s structured, it’s not awkward to be at the table without talking, and table talk at this particular dive comes easy and I don’t have to think about how to break into conversation. Most attendees are regulars and familiarity breeds friendliness. (Of course many regulars have their own little beefs with each other, but I… well I’ve developed one beef but that’s ok, we just ignore each other).

Actually I’m so bad at breaking into conversation that I usually bring a book or walk around outside in the 20 minutes between arriving and the start of the nightly tournament!

I’m not saying “go find a free dive bar poker tournament”, but yeah, something with some structure seems good. Sitting around at a football bar hoping someone talks to you is an ok way to pass the time but not overly promising socially.

I was trying to write a line here about how poker tournament social structure is different than philosophy meetup social structure but actually the primary difference is class. None of these people have ever considered attending a philosophy meetup. Most have never visited meetup.com or would know what it was. A recent memory: the type of guy who uses the term “chinese” to mean “asian” - no offense intended, no point to be made, simply “chinese” - fits in well at this bar. 

You’ve tried the middle class; your investigation isn’t complete until you’ve hung out with the lower class. (Surely that will turn things around). 

The question to solve is: where can you do this in your area that doesn’t require you to sit alone and wait to be roped into a conversation, nor requires you to do some kind of distasteful “cold approach” to try and insert yourself into a group? The goal is 1) structured 2) low class. 

I’d heard of the data processing inequality but don’t remember every understanding it. Now I feel like I do. Great example.

Wildbow’s Claw is about a husband and wife with two kids doing and dealing with the consequences of clandestine activities. I think he set out to specifically write a book about a family, where the children weren’t written off the screen but rather were the whole point, and he very much succeeded! The story itself is also gripping, I enjoyed it a lot.

I think it depends on the relationship. My girlfriend sometimes asks me things that are obvious to me and easily searchable, but I enjoy the opportunity to flex my knowledge with her. My good friend who is an excellent conversationalist asks, I’m happy to answer, because he usually has interesting follow-up thoughts. My past coworker who I don’t think is very intelligent and I wonder if we should have even hired and hasn’t improved much - I am not terribly interested in answering such a question.

I like this better!

It’s odd - a friend messaged me after reading to say he did the same thing, yet Dickinson analysts are either mystified or in denial that the caps mean anything at all; and the only articles I could find on Trump’s casing found it very odd indeed and were similarly mystified (though they were low-effort output articles at major news organizations, not analysis). So I am hearing only that it’s super weird or that it’s quite typical, nothing in-between!

I took a year of French in college yet had no idea - this is great, I like this.

Scott Alexander uses this style sometimes, and I like it. However, he tends to do it once per essay. I think that can work very well. Here, though, after I hit the “that’s wrong” multiple times, it started to feel like nothing in the essay was worth trying to understand, since I expected what I was reading to later be proclaimed wrong. (Just my own feeling.)

Yeah... so one of my problems with the post is that it presents itself as an exhortation to apply ironclad rationalist thought:

>when the tribal flags come out, you suit up. Operational definitions. Base rates. 48-hour restraint on attribution. Public updates when you're wrong. The whole apparatus of rationalist epistemics applied to the domain where motivated reasoning runs hottest.

but when I present the data I did in my original comment, you show yourself to be overfocused on what's possible, at the expense of what is likely.

I think the essence of rationalist practice is to be good at reasoning under uncertainty, and part of that is integrating multiple pieces of evidence. One can attack any single datum: certainly there is a possibility "Bella Ciao" was written in with a niche meme in mind, rather than an Anti-Facist idea. But "Catch, Facist!" was also written. 
Certainly anyone can date a trans person; but it's more likely for a left-aligned person to than a right-aligned one, due to the right's clear distaste for the trans movement, and the left's clear support. 
These items, in conjunction with what Robinson's mother said about his shift to the left, together, are really quite suggestive.

Against these data, there is the hypothesis that actually Robinson is on the far Right. This hypothesis requires the FBI to have fabricated or edited the messages, and further, for them to make it so the roommate does not ever say "hey, that's not what he sent me". It also requires Robinson's mother to be badly wrong, lying, or for the quote from her to be misattributed or made up. I don't think these things are likely.

This overfocus of yours on what is possible, instead of what's likely, is partisan-driven, not "the whole apparatus of rationalist epistemics" you frame the post as.