6 ms·

I know you're a huge advocate for Lesswrong, but not "everybody" or "anyone" has quotes ripe for picking like Yudkowsky. Stephen Bond is not just throwing some

I know you're a huge advocate for Lesswrong, but not "everybody" or "anyone" has quotes ripe for picking like Yudkowsky. Stephen Bond is not just throwing some opinion out there, he's backing it up with first-hand sources: Yudkowsky on his simplified views of why race gets brought up: > "Race adds extra controversy to everything; in that sense, it's obvious what difference skin colour makes politically". > "Group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. [...] Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all." Yudkowsky on our current societal structure, adulating the people who give him funding: > One of the major surprises I received when I moved out of childhood into the real world, was the degree to which the world is stratified by genuine competence. Yudkowsky writing short stories about a society where rape is legal, leaving himself ample room for plausible deniability, but putting it up "for debate": >> "No, us. The ones who remembered the ancient world. Back then we still had our hands on a large share of the capital and tremendous influence in the grant committees. When our children legalized rape, we thought that the Future had gone wrong." >> Akon's mouth hung open. "You were that prude?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131206200429/http://lesswrong.com/lw/y8/interlude_with_the_confessor_48/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131206200429/http://lesswrong....) I think some well-meaning LessWrongers get caught in the crossfire, but I think the essay makes a very well grounded case for the blindspots "rationalists" have towards politics that suit the identity of people like Yudkowski.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I'm not that huge advocate of LW. I used to frequent the site, I read the Sequences and generally liked what I saw. RE parts you quoted. Of course they look bad, because they've been ripped out from context. Race: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences... This is an article asking, to quote: "But why is it that the rest of the world seems to think that individual genetic differences are okay, whereas racial genetic differences in intelligence are not?". Yudkowsky seems to argue that making big controversies around whether there are, or are not, differences between "races" is missing the point; it's just one of many variables and we should focus on fixing intelligence disparities for everyone. Society: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ub/competent_elites/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ub/competent_elites/ This blogpost is marked as controversial from the get-go. It covers a quite interesting theory IMO - that the very common meme, which says that elites are stupid and evil, is in fact wrong. Eliezer argues towards a more socially uncomfortable opinion - that elites are, in fact, smarter and better at organizing things. Given that this is a belief most people are heavily biased against, it actually may be the "thing you can't say", per PG's essay at http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html. Story: Geez. This is a sci-fi story. Moreover, it's explicitly designed to fuck with reader's moral intuitions. That's its entire point. Personally, I find it fun and insightful, but it is heavy. You can read the whole work here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ -- And to be clear. I'm not idolizing Eliezer. He's just a man who thought a lot about some stuff, and wanted to share it. He sometimes gets it wrong (and, as opposed to many, has at least the courage to admit he was wrong). But I absolutely hate this kind of bullshit pseudocriticism when it's directed against anyone - be it my friend or enemy, be it someone I admire or despise of. Eliezer is not beyond criticism, but we can do better than that.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  I guess I just disagree with you that they're taken out of context? 1. Bond posits Yudkowski thinks that racism is mostly due to genetic difference, and not about the deliberate, mostly political disenfranchisement of minorities. You say this is a wrong because his appraisal of the situation as being caused by genetic disparities is benevolent, and that he wants to work to "fix" it. These aren't in contradiction- to say that it's unfortunate that society is racialized, but that it's due to traits rather than politics, is better than being wantonly racist, but still a well-known form of fallacious racism. Some would say this latter one is actually worse in terms of perpetuating the situation. 2. Of course it's "controversial from the get go". He looks at the disproportionate representation of certain people in ie: tech, and concludes that it's because they're "more competent". Nothing here seems to be a counter, you're just basically saying "it's politically incorrect so it's probably right". 3. Clearly it's just a story. This point eludes exactly nobody. The whole point is that these kind of people find these questions ("is rape really bad?") really intriguing rather than obvious. It makes you wonder about the power of Bayesian reasoning- the exact point of the essay. I think you're too uncharitable to critical writers like Bond (it took me a while to acquire a taste for this vicious kind of writing), underestimating their and their audiences' understanding. As a result, you think this context adds way more than it does.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    The racism and feminism points Bond makes sound to me like typical social justice warrior bullshit - no matter what you do, you're a misogynist racist. Disagreeing with the modern trend of mindless outrage paints you as an enemy. So does ignoring the topic. So let me skip it, because I do disagree with Bond very seriously about that part of the text, and I don't want to start another SJW subthread here. > Nothing here seems to be a counter, you're just basically saying "it's politically incorrect so it's probably right". No; I'm saying that just because he's politically incorrect, doesn't mean he's wrong. And it most definitely does not mean Bond gets to assume all the bad things he did about the author. Eliezer is just toying with an idea based on some observations. Personally, I find his idea intriguing and worth considering, given that time and again I've learned that when the general population seems to believe something counterintuitive and self-serving, like "those rich people are stupid and evil", they're usually wrong. > The whole point is that these kind of people find these questions ("is rape really bad?") really intriguing rather than obvious. I think we disagree on the interpretation. Many stories raise weird questions about morality; that's the reason we have literature. Please find me a place on LW where people, and Eliezer in particular, were seriously advocating for rape. Also it's worth noting that the rape angle was just a passing remark in the story, a way to shake the audience a little bit - and otherwise in no way relevant to the plot. > I think you're too uncharitable to critical writers like Bond (it took me a while to acquire a taste for this vicious kind of writing), underestimating their and their audiences' understanding. As a result, you think this context adds way more than it does. Maybe I am, but it's because I've been a member of groups that were on the receiving end of such writings, and spent a lot of time debunking them point-by-point to concerned friends and colleagues who stumbled upon them. It's painful, and you realize just how helpless you are against people who argue dishonestly.
jimrandomh 11y ago
These sorts of quotes can reveal a lot about the source that quoted them, if you track them back to their original source and check for reasonableness there. I think you'll find that each of these quotes had its meaning or connotation dramatically altered by the removal of context.
ikeboy 11y ago
> "Group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. [...] Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all." Those parentheses obscure a significant point. The full paragraph is >So, in defiance of this psychological difference, and in defiance of politics, let me point out that a group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. If God has not given intelligence in equal measure to all his children, God stands convicted of a crime against humanity, period. Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all. He's claiming that skin color has nothing to do with the (according to him) injustice of different people having different intelligences. He's not claiming that skin color has nothing to do with why people don't get a fair chance at life. "Skin colour has nothing to do with it" is making a moral claim, not an empirical one.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I'm not that huge advocate of LW. I used to frequent the site, I read the Sequences and generally liked what I saw. RE parts you quoted. Of course they look bad, because they've been ripped out from context. Race: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences... This is an article asking, to quote: "But why is it that the rest of the world seems to think that individual genetic differences are okay, whereas racial genetic differences in intelligence are not?". Yudkowsky seems to argue that making big controversies around whether there are, or are not, differences between "races" is missing the point; it's just one of many variables and we should focus on fixing intelligence disparities for everyone. Society: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ub/competent_elites/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ub/competent_elites/ This blogpost is marked as controversial from the get-go. It covers a quite interesting theory IMO - that the very common meme, which says that elites are stupid and evil, is in fact wrong. Eliezer argues towards a more socially uncomfortable opinion - that elites are, in fact, smarter and better at organizing things. Given that this is a belief most people are heavily biased against, it actually may be the "thing you can't say", per PG's essay at http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html. Story: Geez. This is a sci-fi story. Moreover, it's explicitly designed to fuck with reader's moral intuitions. That's its entire point. Personally, I find it fun and insightful, but it is heavy. You can read the whole work here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ -- And to be clear. I'm not idolizing Eliezer. He's just a man who thought a lot about some stuff, and wanted to share it. He sometimes gets it wrong (and, as opposed to many, has at least the courage to admit he was wrong). But I absolutely hate this kind of bullshit pseudocriticism when it's directed against anyone - be it my friend or enemy, be it someone I admire or despise of. Eliezer is not beyond criticism, but we can do better than that.

RodericDay 11y ago
I guess I just disagree with you that they're taken out of context? 1. Bond posits Yudkowski thinks that racism is mostly due to genetic difference, and not about the deliberate, mostly political disenfranchisement of minorities. You say this is a wrong because his appraisal of the situation as being caused by genetic disparities is benevolent, and that he wants to work to "fix" it. These aren't in contradiction- to say that it's unfortunate that society is racialized, but that it's due to traits rather than politics, is better than being wantonly racist, but still a well-known form of fallacious racism. Some would say this latter one is actually worse in terms of perpetuating the situation. 2. Of course it's "controversial from the get go". He looks at the disproportionate representation of certain people in ie: tech, and concludes that it's because they're "more competent". Nothing here seems to be a counter, you're just basically saying "it's politically incorrect so it's probably right". 3. Clearly it's just a story. This point eludes exactly nobody. The whole point is that these kind of people find these questions ("is rape really bad?") really intriguing rather than obvious. It makes you wonder about the power of Bayesian reasoning- the exact point of the essay. I think you're too uncharitable to critical writers like Bond (it took me a while to acquire a taste for this vicious kind of writing), underestimating their and their audiences' understanding. As a result, you think this context adds way more than it does.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The racism and feminism points Bond makes sound to me like typical social justice warrior bullshit - no matter what you do, you're a misogynist racist. Disagreeing with the modern trend of mindless outrage paints you as an enemy. So does ignoring the topic. So let me skip it, because I do disagree with Bond very seriously about that part of the text, and I don't want to start another SJW subthread here. > Nothing here seems to be a counter, you're just basically saying "it's politically incorrect so it's probably right". No; I'm saying that just because he's politically incorrect, doesn't mean he's wrong. And it most definitely does not mean Bond gets to assume all the bad things he did about the author. Eliezer is just toying with an idea based on some observations. Personally, I find his idea intriguing and worth considering, given that time and again I've learned that when the general population seems to believe something counterintuitive and self-serving, like "those rich people are stupid and evil", they're usually wrong. > The whole point is that these kind of people find these questions ("is rape really bad?") really intriguing rather than obvious. I think we disagree on the interpretation. Many stories raise weird questions about morality; that's the reason we have literature. Please find me a place on LW where people, and Eliezer in particular, were seriously advocating for rape. Also it's worth noting that the rape angle was just a passing remark in the story, a way to shake the audience a little bit - and otherwise in no way relevant to the plot. > I think you're too uncharitable to critical writers like Bond (it took me a while to acquire a taste for this vicious kind of writing), underestimating their and their audiences' understanding. As a result, you think this context adds way more than it does. Maybe I am, but it's because I've been a member of groups that were on the receiving end of such writings, and spent a lot of time debunking them point-by-point to concerned friends and colleagues who stumbled upon them. It's painful, and you realize just how helpless you are against people who argue dishonestly.

jimrandomh 11y ago

These sorts of quotes can reveal a lot about the source that quoted them, if you track them back to their original source and check for reasonableness there. I think you'll find that each of these quotes had its meaning or connotation dramatically altered by the removal of context.

ikeboy 11y ago

> "Group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. [...] Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all." Those parentheses obscure a significant point. The full paragraph is >So, in defiance of this psychological difference, and in defiance of politics, let me point out that a group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. If God has not given intelligence in equal measure to all his children, God stands convicted of a crime against humanity, period. Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all. He's claiming that skin color has nothing to do with the (according to him) injustice of different people having different intelligences. He's not claiming that skin color has nothing to do with why people don't get a fair chance at life. "Skin colour has nothing to do with it" is making a moral claim, not an empirical one.