Here you’re appealing to winning on an individual level, which creates coordination problems. If Zack is doing something wrong because he is losing at an individual level, then sufficiently powerful coalitions get to control what is right or wrong by controlling the individual incentives, which seems like A Problem.
If we think Zack has a point on the object level, but some force is preventing him from winning, then it seems logical for rationalists to coordinate to help him win. If we think Zack is wrong on the object level, then it seems like it would be more appropriate to explain to him his mistake on the object level, rather than to appeal to the political challenges he faces.
I don’t think we should help him convince other people of a position that seems to have driven him kinda insane.
It is also kind of funny to me the post references clarity in the title but I honestly don’t even know what Zach thinks about when people should transition. To be clear I think we should be supportive of people who transition. And people should transition iff they think it will make them happier. But whatever the best practical policies are I seriously doubt Zach’s philosophical point of view is going to be prudent to promote or adopt.
It is also kind of funny to me the post references clarity in the title but I honestly don’t even know what Zach thinks about when people should transition.
Zack actually has a post which addresses this sort of question quite directly:
Not sure what “a position” is referring to. Do you mean his beliefs about categorization? His distrust of rationalists? I think lots of people agree with both of these without obsessively writing blog posts and losing sleep, so I don’t think you can attribute his problems solely to this.
Here you’re appealing to winning on an individual level, which creates coordination problems. If Zack is doing something wrong because he is losing at an individual level, then sufficiently powerful coalitions get to control what is right or wrong by controlling the individual incentives, which seems like A Problem.
If we think Zack has a point on the object level, but some force is preventing him from winning, then it seems logical for rationalists to coordinate to help him win. If we think Zack is wrong on the object level, then it seems like it would be more appropriate to explain to him his mistake on the object level, rather than to appeal to the political challenges he faces.
I don’t think we should help him convince other people of a position that seems to have driven him kinda insane.
It is also kind of funny to me the post references clarity in the title but I honestly don’t even know what Zach thinks about when people should transition. To be clear I think we should be supportive of people who transition. And people should transition iff they think it will make them happier. But whatever the best practical policies are I seriously doubt Zach’s philosophical point of view is going to be prudent to promote or adopt.
Zack actually has a post which addresses this sort of question quite directly:
http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Sep/i-dont-do-policy/
Not sure what “a position” is referring to. Do you mean his beliefs about categorization? His distrust of rationalists? I think lots of people agree with both of these without obsessively writing blog posts and losing sleep, so I don’t think you can attribute his problems solely to this.