TorqueDrifter

Karma: 277

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 21:53 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
So you believe that racism is not alive and well in modern America and American politics?

You don’t think that the “birther controversy” was racist in nature? You think this whole thing is a coincidence? You think this type of thing doesn’t happen? You think this is a complete fabrication?

This seems like a complete failure of critical thinking.

If this isn’t what you’re saying, could you say plainly what it is you believe and why?
What links here?
- TimS's comment on 2012 Survey Results by Scott Alexander (3 Dec 2012 16:02 UTC; 0 points)

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 18:09 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
Maybe. There is still undoubtedly a strong racist component to the right-wing belief melange.

But perhaps we’re arguing semantics. I meant that the belief in question is something that would be associated with the right wing (due to said component), something that would be argued, with not-insignificant frequency, covertly by public figures and publicly by private citizens of that party, not that it’s something a majority of right-wing-identified people would assent to, privately or publicly. Is that unfair?

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 18:00 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
Who’s “focusing”? I would argue, if we take your numbers, that the incorrect 30% are disproportionately problematic compared to the remaining 70%, and that there are other, non-epistemic problems involved in racism. Eugine_Nier said that “the problem” is the 70%. That’s the disagreement that’s going on here. My claim is not that modern-day racism is on average a greater distortion of the facts than an inability to perceive race would be.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 17:51 UTC
4 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
That’s the explanation I’d lean towards myself.

As for the radical-feminists-versus-transsexuals thing—there seems to be a fair amount of tension between the gender/sexuality theories of different parts of the queer and feminist movements, which are generally glossed over in favor of cooperation due to common goals. Which, actually, is somewhat heartening.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 17:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: evand’s comment on: Causal Universes
Neat! I still need to give some thought to the question of where we’re getting our probability distribution, though, when the majority of the computation is done by the universe’s plothole filter.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 10:28 UTC
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
I dunno, 2 and 3 seem like things I’d expect the right-wing to believe (though probably with less nuance) in America (not to say they wouldn’t go into sputtering apoplexy if you said certain formulations of those ideas out loud and there was a camera nearby). And who was calling for revolution after the recent election? (tongue somewhat in cheek there)

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 10:23 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
It’s certainly my (a) true rejection of “the problem is that [people] are updating correctly”. What did you expect I was rejecting?

I dunno what that society would be more similar to. I expect it’d be a fair distance from either, and that there would remain significant problems apart from inequality of social status, economic status, etc. Eugine_Nier’s assertion was that it would be identical (read: very similar) to what we have now. I disagreed.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 9:52 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
Some such information is degraded, yes, but not all, and not to uselessness. And yes, people are beaten in the first world in this day and age for being black or for being white, and I find it difficult to blame either of those on the use or misuse of Bayesian updating (except to the extent that observing a person’s race might tell you “I can get away with this”).

I do not accept your contention that people just happen to be exactly the correct degree of racist.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 9:10 UTC
0 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: The substrate
Well, they don’t exist at all, so the risk that they will stop existing is very low.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 9:08 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
I disagree. Many statistical effects of race are screened off by fairly easily obtained information, but people act as though this is not the case. Moreover, if you, say, beat someone for being black, that’s really not tied to any sort of problem with your use of Bayesian updating.

TorqueDrifter 1 Dec 2012 5:51 UTC
3 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
Yeah, no idea how good my intuitions are here. I don’t have much experience with the subject, and frankly have a little difficulty vividly imagining what it’s like to have strong feelings about one’s own gender. So let’s go read Jandila’s comments instead of this one.

TorqueDrifter 30 Nov 2012 20:43 UTC
8 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
I don’t know of any such data. I’d imagine that there’s less of a psychological barrier to engaging in traditionally “gendered” interests for most transgendered people (that is, if you think a lot about gender being a social construct, you’re probably going to care less about a cultural distinction between “tv shows for boys” and “tv shows for girls”). Beyond that I can’t really speculate.

Edit: here’s me continuing to speculate anyway. A transgendered person is more likely than a cisgendered person to have significant periods of their life in which they are perceived as having different genders, and therefore is likely to be more fully exposed to cultural expectations for each.

TorqueDrifter 29 Nov 2012 22:14 UTC
21 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
Under this theory, it seems (with low statistical confidence of course) that LW-interest is perhaps correlated with biological sex rather than gender identity, or perhaps with assigned-gender-during-childhood. Which is kind of interesting.

TorqueDrifter 29 Nov 2012 17:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: evand’s comment on: Causal Universes
Why exponentially, precisely?

TorqueDrifter 29 Nov 2012 17:49 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Decius’s comment on: Causal Universes
True! That’s why every twelve-year-old establishes elaborate passphrases for identifying alternate / time-displaced selves.

TorqueDrifter 28 Nov 2012 20:17 UTC
3 points
in reply to: JulianMorrison’s comment on: Causal Universes
Can’t you just receive a packet of data from the future, verify it, then send it back into the past? Wouldn’t that avoid having an eternal computer?

TorqueDrifter 28 Nov 2012 18:56 UTC
12 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Causal Universes
My understanding is that Stable Time Loops work differently: basically, the universe progresses in such a way that any and all time traveling makes sense and is consistent with the observed past. Under the above model, you will never witness another copy of yourself traveling from the future, though you might witness another copy of yourself traveling from an alternate past future that will now never have been. With STL, you can totally witness a copy of yourself traveling from the future, and you will definitely happen to travel back in time to then and do whatever they did. That’s my understanding, at least.

TorqueDrifter 28 Nov 2012 18:38 UTC
13 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
That would have been more reasonable, though also trivial and irrelevant (yes, some reformers fail. what of it? this comment wouldn’t make sense in context). But the claim in the great-grandparent is made in absolute terms, a claim about the nature of the world—if you push society from default modes, then it will get harder and harder to accomplish nothing much and eventually you will be crushed.

One might feel compelled to interpret this as an error, and say that the intent was to say something trivial instead of wrong. But I thought that unlikely based on the user’s posts in this topic: one about how reformers are crushed by history, one about how “the PC hive mind” is trying to silence them in order to establish themselves as the unquestioned masters of reality, and one misinterpreting and mocking a post about how you can insult people with facts.

Comments about how one’s “opponents” are doomed to horrible violent retribution by the very nature of the universe are not unheard of. See, for example, the Men’s Rights Movement, branches of which prophecy a coming time of inevitable violent revolution against our feminist overlords, or Communism, under some versions of which the success of the movement and the overthrow of all opposition is an (eventual) immutable fact.

TorqueDrifter 28 Nov 2012 7:04 UTC
6 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
You say there was what size bang?

TorqueDrifter 28 Nov 2012 2:19 UTC
2 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance
My bad! Probably just oversensitive because of what thread we’re in. Apologies!