I have to leave pretty soon and can’t give this post by scientiststhesis a full response, but I want to make a few quick points that may clarify the post of mine that he is riffing on.

First of all: I’m flattered that you say I’m smart!  Thank you.  But I don’t really see the “obviousness” of certain LW beliefs as being related to intelligence.  You say you’ve met lots of people who are “traditionally considered intelligent” and don’t find these ideas obvious.  I have also had this experience.

In college, talking to a lot of academically “smart” people, I met some people who already shared my basic philosophical outlook, and also some people who didn’t and who I could never convince to see things my way.  Eventually I stopped trying.  The way I see it, things like this are a lot like fundamental politics.  A site providing basic arguments in favor of mainstream left-wing progressivism would be kind of superfluous, not because everyone (or everyone sufficiently “smart”) is already a leftist, but because most people who aren’t leftists wouldn’t be swayed by the site.

So, when I said this:

“ ‘many philosophical debates are the results of disagreements over semantics’ — yeah, we know”

I was kind of making a joke, because this is the kind of idea that you will find big, politics-like rifts over among academics.  You often hear this idea attributed to Wittgenstein, but then, as Paul Graham says:

Wittgenstein is popularly credited with the idea that most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language. I’m not sure how much credit to give him. I suspect a lot of people realized this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than becoming philosophy professors.

In other words, there were already plenty of people who had this idea – but Wittgenstein had the idea and also became a “major philosophical figure,” so that people who wanted to become philosophers were forced to grapple with it.  This is the kind of thing I remember being argued over at college dinner tables, and feeling much like a political argument – everyone felt that their side was kind of “obvious” and no one ever really changed their views.  When I say “yeah, we know,” the “we” is referring to “me and the kind of people who were on my side in those college dinner conversations.”  Or Graham’s “lot of people.”

And I know I’m ignoring the people here, who clearly exist, who do benefit from having the case for certain things spelled out.  The invisible middle between “X is obvious” and “you’ll never convince me of X no matter how many college dinner arguments we have.”  Cf. queenshulamit’s recent autobiographical post – and I know there are plenty of other people who credit LW with aiding the development of their worldview.

But, again, I see this as being a lot like politics.  If that “why you should be a mainstream leftist FAQ” actually existed, there would certainly be some people who would first discover leftism – or leftism as something with some good arguments behind it – through the site, and would credit the site with aiding their personal development.  But they would be greatly outnumbered by people who spontaneously become mainstream leftists at age 14 and never look back, or people who reject leftism in similar fashion.  And I think we could justly say such an FAQ would be sort of “superfluous” in the sense that the main barrier to the spreading of these ideas is not that people don’t know about the arguments in favor of them.  That’s what I mean by “yeah, we know.”

(There’s an open question here about what attitude we should have towards resources about about these kind of “political” questions.  Maybe the “why you should be a mainstream leftist FAQ" should exist, if only for the 0.1% of people who would find it useful.  But I would not expect its construction to have a major impact upon the world; I would be pretty much indifferent to it, even if to that 0.1% it would be quite valuable indeed.  It would be helpful, but not that helpful, and I would be wary of any attempt to "spread the gospel” on the basis of it.  Analogy to LW here.)

Okay, second point, about singularity and FAI: I see these as being important to LW in a way that is out of proportion to how often they are mentioned.  Yudkowsky works on FAI, tries to get people to work on FAI or donate, several central LW figures (e.g. Kaj Sotala, Nate Soares) work at MIRI.  Yudkowsky and Vassar say they’ve had to downplay AI risk talk relative to rationality talk as a PR move (rationality brings people in, AI risk scares people away).  AI- and singularity-related stuff seem to be major emotional hooks for much of the community: I went to the Solstice event in 2013 and many of the songs there made the most sense if interpreted as encouragements to work toward a positive singularity, the blog post “Beyond the Reach of God” was read in emotional tones, etc.  Even if this stuff is not explicitly talked about much on the main site, its role within the community is very obvious to anyone coming in from the outside.

(There is probably a center / periphery difference here: I would expect that the people who attend Solstice are much more likely to be worried about AI risk than the average main site reader, and also more likely to be core community members, the sort of people who post often on the main site or prominent blogs, attend meetups, etc.  So “AI risk is important” is a “core LW belief” in the sense of being a “belief held by the core.”)

Some more notes regarding HPMOR →

Follow-up to the previous post: there’s a common phenomenon in Homestuck liveblogs where someone’s initial response to the comic is “I don’t get the appeal of this” or “why did people recommend this crap to me?”, and then after a certain point they get more and more into it and pretty soon they’re rabid, obsessed fans.  One of the more prominent fan liveblogs actually started out as something close to a hateblog.

I think Homestuck may be unique in this?  It’s possible to imagine su3su2u1’s HPMOR liveblog going through this kind of process, but given everything I know about the story, it’s very, very unlikely.  On the other hand, it would be possible to write a similar blog detailing everything that is wrong with, say, the first 500 pages of Homestuck (and there are many things wrong with them)

Some more notes regarding HPMOR →

Some more notes regarding HPMOR

su3su2u1:

There is a line in the movie Clueless (if you aren’t familiar, Clueless was an older generation’s Mean Girls) where a woman is described as a “Monet”- in that like the painting, it looks good from afar but up close is a mess.  

So I’m now nearly 25 chapters into this thing, and I’m starting to think that HPMOR is this sort of a monet- if you let yourself get carried along, it seems ok-enough.  It references a lot of things that a niche group of people,myself included, like (physics! computational complexity! genetics! psychology!).  But as you stare at it more, you start noticing that it doesn’t actually hang together, its a complete mess.  

The hard science references are subtly wrong, and often aren’t actually explained in-story (just a jargon dump to say ‘look, here is a thing you like’).  

The social science stuff fairs a bit better (its less wrong ::rimshot::), but even when its explanation is correct, its power is wildly exaggerated- conversations between Quirrell/Malfoy/Potter seem to follow scripts of the form

“Here is an awesome manipulation I’m using against you”

“My, that is an effective manipulation. You are a dangerous man”

“I know, but I also know that you are only flattering me as an attempt to manipulate me." 

"My, what an effective use of Bayesian evidence that is!”  

Other characters get even worse treatment, either behaving nonsensically to prove how good Harry is at manipulation (as in the chapter where Harry tells off Snape and then tries to blackmail the school because Snape asked him questions he didn’t know), OR acting nonsensically so Harry can explain why its nonsensical (“Carry this rock around for no reason.” “Thats actually the fallacy of privileging the hypothesis.”)  The social science/manipulation/marketing psychology stuff is just a flavoring for conversations.

 No important event in the story has hinged on any of this rationality- instead basically every conflict thus far is resolved via the time turner.   

And if you strip all this out, all the wrongish science-jargon and the conversations that serve no purpose but to prove Malfoy/Quirrell/Harry are “awesome” by having them repeatedly think/tell each other how awesome they are, the story has no real structure.  Its just a series of poorly paced (if you strip out the “awesome” conversations, then there are many chapters where nothing happens), disconnected events.  There is no there there. 

I think this “Monet” idea may go some way to explaining why HPMOR strikes different people very differently.

I get the sense that HPMOR falls into a certain category of web fiction that is typically very long, very complicated, often not very well executed on the micro level, but (arguably) impressive or interesting on the macro level.  (Another example is Worm, which seems to have major fan overlap with HPMOR, and which I have also tried to read but just didn’t enjoy on the micro level.  Although I may not have given it enough of a chance)

Anecdotally, I think the people who like this stuff are often fast readers who are able to ignore micro-level flaws and quickly “vacuum up” all of the interesting or worthwhile parts of a story.  Personally, I’m a slow reader, so I have a hard time getting into this stuff, and gravitate to things that are either fast-paced with many intriguing mysteries (so that I read faster than is “natural” for me) or things that are “literary” in the sense that they strive to be interesting on the micro level, down to things like word choice and sentence structure.

If you were closer to the ideal HPMOR reader, you wouldn’t be posting critiques of the science and plotting in each chapter, you would already be on like chapter 67 or something and would have found something in the story you thought was legitimately good and focused on that element (or elements) while effortlessly passing over the flaws.  (Not to imply that this would be better than what you are doing!)

An possible example of the HPMOR type of fiction that isn’t on the web is A Song of Ice and Fire.  I have been assured that if you read multiple thousands of pages of that series, the plot and characters eventually become very interesting.  But I stopped at page 120 of the first book because I am a slow reader, 120 pages takes a nontrivial amount of time for me to read, and those 120 pages were slow and generic and boring.

An example of the HPMOR type of story (long, on the web, wonderful macro-level structure with many micro-level flaws) that I could get into is Homestuck.  Part of this is that it is very well-paced in a sense – it is always driving you forward with various tiers of mysteries (from those that are resolved a few pages after they are introduced to those that are resolved thousands of pages after they are introduced), so I read it faster than I usually read things.  Going back and re-reading it has been frustrating because I notice so many unfunny jokes or otherwise poorly executed moments that I essentially ignored the first time around, much the way some people are able to ignore HPMOR’s flaws.  But then another factor is that Homestuck has many micro-level successes as well as micro-level failures: many clever or well-done individual moments of dialogue, characterization, etc.

(via su3su2u1-deactivated20160226)

Chapter 23- Wizarding genetics made (way too) simple

su3su2u1:

Alright, I need to preface this: I have the average particle physicists knowledge of biology (a few college courses, long ago mostly forgotten).  That said, the lagavulin is flowing, so I’m going to pontificate as if I’m obviously right, so please reblog me with corrections if I am wrong. 

In this chapter, Hariezer and Draco are going to explore what I think of as the blood hypothesis- that wizardry is carried in the blood, and that intermarriage with non-magical types is diluting wizardry.  

Hariezer gives Draco a brief, serviceable enough description of DNA (more like pebbles than water),   He lays out two models- there are lots of wizarding genes, and the more wizard genes you have, the more powerful the wizard you are.  In this case, Hariezer reasons, as powerful wizards marry less powerful wizards, or non-magical types, the frequency of the magical variant of wizard genes in the general population becomes diluted.  In this model, two squibs might rarely manage to have a wizard child, but they are likely to be weaker than wizard-born wizards. Call this model 1. 

The other model Hariezer lays out is that magic lies on a single recessive gene.  He reasons squibs have one dominant, non-magical version, and one recessive magical version of the gene.  So of kids born to squibs, ¼ will be wizards.  In this version, you either have magic or you don’t, so if wizards married the non-magical, wizards themselves could become more rare, but the power of wizards won’t be diluted.  Call this model 2.

The proper test between model 1 and 2, suggests Hariezer, is to look at the children born to two squibs.  If about one fourth of them are wizards, its evidence of model 2, otherwise, evidence of model 1.   

There is a huge problem with this.  Do you see it?  Here is a hint, What other predictions does model 2 make?  While you are thinking about it, read on.

Before I answer the question, I want to point out that Hariezer ignores tons of other plausible models.  Here is one I just made up.  Imagine, for instance, a single gene that switches magic on and off, and a whole series of other genes that make you a better wizard.  Maybe some double-jointed-wrist gene allows you to move your wand in unusually deft ways.  Maybe some mouth-shape gene allows you to pronounce magical sounds no one else can.  In this case, magical talent can be watered down as in model 1, and wizard inheritance could still look like Mendel would suggest, as in model 2.  

Alright, below I’m going to answer my query above.  Soon there will be no time to figure it for yourself. 

Squibs are, by definition, the non-wizard children of wizard parents.  Hariezer’s model 2 predicts that squibs cannot exist.  It is already empirically disproven.  

Hariezer, of course, does not notice this massive problem with his favored model, and Draco’s collected genealogy suggests about 6 out of 28 squib born children were wizards, so he declares model 2 wins the test.  

Draco flips out, because now that he “knows” that magic isn’t being watered down by breeding he can’t join the death eaters and his whole life is ruined,etc.  Hariezer is happy that Draco has “awakened as a scientist.”  (I hadn’t complained about the stilted language in awhile, just reminding you that its still there), but Draco lashes out and casts a torture spell and locks Hariezer in the dungeon.  After some failed escape attempts, he once against resorts to the time turner, because even now that its locked down, its the solution to every problem. 

One other thing of note- to investigate the hypothesis that really strong spells can’t be cast anymore, Hariezer tries to look up a strong spell and runs into “the interdict of Merlin” that strong spells can’t be written down, only passed from wizard to wizard.  

Its looking marginally possible that it will turn out that this natural secrecy is exactly whats killing off powerful magic- its not open so ideas aren’t flourishing or being passed on.  Hariezer will notice that and realize his “Bayesian Conspiracy” won’t be as effective as an open science culture, and I’ll have to take back all of my criticisms around secretive science (it will be a lesson Hariezer learns, and not an idea Hariezer endorses).  It seems more likely given the author’s existential risk concerns, however, that this interdict of Merlin will be endorsed. 

The reasoning here seems correct to me – the only way out is if “squib” has a different definition in HPMOR from canon, but as far as I can tell this is never spelled out in HPMOR and it’s not a thing one would naturally assume unless one were trying to patch up this error.  (Anyone else want to comment?)

(via su3su2u1-deactivated20160226)

stormingtheivory:

nostalgebraist:

yxoque:

The whole interaction between stormingtheivory and the tumblr rationalist community is getting on my nerves.

Read More

To clarify where I’m coming from here: I don’t see myself as “a rationalist” or “on the rationalist side.”  I think LW has big problems with how it does politics.  My attitude is that stormingtheivory is not a voice who can help LW fix these problems, and I linked some posts to try to convey how I got that opinion of stormingtheivory, and maybe bring some other people around to that opinion.

(This is based on a preconceived opinion I’ve had of stormingtheivory for a long time, not anything influenced by the present debate.  I read those posts back when they were posted and they made me mad back then.)

Holy shit, are you seriously butting in on somewhere you don’t belong, stirring up shit between me and a community you aren’t a part of, because you’re pissed off that I don’t think queer allies should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot?

Fuck you!

Wow, good to know that at least some of the hate I’m getting from Rationalists isn’t actually from Rationalists AT ALL but is from pedantic little shits who are just opportunistically getting strikes in. That makes me feel significantly better about interacting with the community.

The answer to the first question is “no, my relationship to the rationalist community is a lot more complicated than that” but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere here.  Given what I’ve said I don’t expect you to want to argue with me or carefully pin down exactly where I’m coming from.  I don’t expect charity from you if I’m not extending it to you.

So why am I responding at all?  Because of this:

because you’re pissed off that I don’t think queer allies should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot

Because it’s stuff like this that makes me distrust you in the first place.  In a world where queer identity is a life-or-death issue for many people, but is not such an issue for almost all allies, can you see why this kind of rhetoric is offensive?  (I understand it’s hyperbole; that doesn’t mean it’s not offensive.)  Can you see why I might not trust someone who talks like this to advise LW (which definitely has rhetoric and inclusivity problems) on rhetoric and inclusivity?

I’m not expecting a earnest response here and given what I’ve said it’s perfectly understandable if you don’t give me one.  I just wanted to make the point.

(via sam-keeper)

yxoque:

The whole interaction between stormingtheivory and the tumblr rationalist community is getting on my nerves.

Read More

To clarify where I’m coming from here: I don’t see myself as “a rationalist” or “on the rationalist side.”  I think LW has big problems with how it does politics.  My attitude is that stormingtheivory is not a voice who can help LW fix these problems, and I linked some posts to try to convey how I got that opinion of stormingtheivory, and maybe bring some other people around to that opinion.

(This is based on a preconceived opinion I’ve had of stormingtheivory for a long time, not anything influenced by the present debate.  I read those posts back when they were posted and they made me mad back then.)

(via yxoque-deactivated20170920)

This may be petty tumblr drama, but on the other hand it may be informative.

I keep seeing stormingtheivory on my dash, and I keep feeling this intense need to link this post they wrote and especially this follow-up (non-reblogged reply to a reply).

In order to clarify why this person frustrates me so much and why I don’t think they’re someone who should necessarily be listened to about things like how to run a community that marginalized people feel comfortable in, or how not to talk down to people, or how to make a community cognitively accessible.

(cw: both posts are arguing for why allies should be considered queer, only read if that sounds like something you can deal with)

You don’t have to agree with me about this.  I’m not going to explain why I don’t like those posts, because I don’t want to start a conversation about them.  If you read them and have no problem with them, fine by me.  I just keep feeling the need to link them, and now I have.