im not going to tell you you're wrong for respecting him, but i feel this comment is only telling half the story. He's very well respected in the "rationalist" community, but he and that community are pretty controversial and definitely not universally respected
Probably very little if any. Most of his other posts that mention promising substances (e.g. Zembrin and other nootropics) like this one[0] don't even include links and if they do I believe they are usually stripped out but I didn't find one with a link easily to confirm. I'm guessing he just included it as there are multiple different brands for this one.
Well, the point was that he (or at least the community he is in) is actively disrespected by some people as well, so it's a bit more pointed than just "not known about".
Mentioning this only for completeness' sake. I think he's good, on net. But somewhat adjacent to some more dubious and distasteful stuff.
Well, he is trustworthy on psychiatry even if he’s a member of a religion that worships nonexistent AIs and Bayes’ theorem.
But his main posting hobby is that he wants to be friends with weird internet right-wing intellectuals and that you should too. So every time I glance at the comments there someone wants to give their opinions on exactly who is genetically less intelligent than the commenter.
Would you write the same comment about a Catholic psychiatrist who wrote a blog about both Catholicism and psychiatry?
Catholicism is definitely pretty controversial and definitely not universally respected, but I think most people would have pretty strong pushback against a commenter who felt the need to bring up an author's Catholicism regarding a blog post that had little to do with catholicism.
If somebody's interested, I would strongly suggest checking out both sides of the dispute and not only that, as the NYT story caused quite some ruckus at the time.
homogeneous teams made up of people who think the same way, have similar backgrounds etc are more likely to have blind spots. Having a diverse set of viewpoints involved in decision making means you are less likely to overlook some corner case that is obvious to some people but not others.
And how do you define "diversity"? Through externally presenting traits? Through who and how people decide to have sex? Much of diversity efforts seem to focus on these things instead of actual diversity of thought and experience.
You might have three "white guys" and one grew up in poverty in the US south and made his way out of it, one who was born in a tiny town in eastern europe, and one who grew up in a middle class family in the SF bay area. But there are many people, if seeing those three guys in a photo, would make some snarky comment about "tech bros" or "white dudes" and completely discount the fact that they are three unique people that have grown up with completely different backgrounds and come with completely different experiences and approaches to life.
Most, if not all, diversity efforts I have come across, including where I currently work, focus exclusively on externally presenting traits like race and gender, with the explicit goals of reducing the numbers of white men in category.
To normalize people being open and explicit about their gender identity so that people with non-obvious gender identities can feel less conspicuous sharing theirs.
> they/them
They and them have been neutral-gender pronouns forever.
> And yet dissent and mockery of this abject stupidity is largely censored.
Because most of it is thinly veiled transphobia. You can still disagree with the censorship but to act as if it's mostly good-faith arguments being censored is just naive.
>To normalize people being open and explicit about their gender identity so that people with non-obvious gender identities can feel less conspicuous sharing theirs.
This oft-repeated stance is a very naive way of thinking in my view, if you're different from 99% of the population, then you're going to stand out no matter how much other people try simulating your superficial markers (while being obviously baseline themselves). If you look like a duck and walk like a duck, no amount of people saying "Quack!" when introducing themselves will prevent me from noticing you're different in a fundamental way from all those people pretending to be like you, all those people are managing to do is a semi-mockery of what they supposedly support. There are deeper patterns than language, humans aren't GPT-3 to be fooled by simplistic imitation games of speech patterns.
It's usually immediately obvious if a She/Her or a They/Them is matching the traditional features of the declared pronouns, it's literally millennia upon millennia of pattern-matching processes deeply hardwired into my mammalian brain and always running in the background, I couldn't stop it if I wanted to. I suspect most people are the same. You don't change reality by changing words, conspicuous things are conspicuous.
Not to mention the whole flawed framework of "Normalizing" and "Validating" things as worthy moral goals in the first place, why do things have to be common in order to be accepted ? So nakedly hive minded.
>They and them have been neutral-gender pronouns forever.
Common misconception, they are not gender-neutral in the modern sense, they refer to those of unkown gender. The gender is still one of the perfectly defined binary we all know, it's just not known or relevant to the speaker. There is no quantum wave function of genders waiting to collapse behind 17th century uses of 'They'. This misunderstanding manifests itself as soon as you encounter monstrosities like "They is looking for a new car to buy".
>Because most of it is thinly veiled transphobia.
Ah yes, transphobia, the cardinal sin, the unspeakable horror, the one thing you're not supposed to say[1]. Let's ban all mention of this atrocity, let's shun and exile All Who Dare Transgress.
This surely won't backfire at all, supressing dissent has a very good track record of eliminating it entirely.
I'm positive you've put more thought into this pair of comments than I ever did in my life about this issue of pronouns. Don't you think it's at least a bit weird that you're so obsessed and irate about such a minor detail?
Also, it's very funny that you're so taken up in arms against the world-ending catastrophe of people writing "they/them" in their twitter bios, yet see no issue with a multi-hundred-billionaire dictating what is and isn't allowed on a major internet platform (by all means wealth inequality is one of the major problems of the modern age).
EDIT: About the singular "they" thing: that whole paragraph is hilarious (quantum what?) but it's a pet peeve of mine to correct those misconceptions. Your sentence is grammatically incorrect, even when the function is singular, the agreement in number is still plural, e.g. "someone wrote their name here" -> "they have written their name", not "they has written their name".
Plus, singular they has been attested since the 14th century. Plural they...? Since the 13th.
>I'm positive you've put more thought into this pair of comments than I ever did in my life about this issue of pronouns.
Eh, not really. I don't even live in a country where that's a common practice (thankfully), my comments naturally tend to be long whatever their subject are, you can verify this yourself by looking at my post history.
>it's very funny that you're so taken up in arms against the world-ending catastrophe of people writing "they/them" in their twitter bios
So, first off, I'm not 'up in arms', it's just that as a man with a certain propensity towards heresies, it's second nature for me to look at a social web and immediately notice the conformists, and I'm not a big fan of conformists. Secondly, I never implied those people are doing anything 'world-ending', although they are participating in their fair share of censorship-defense and general internet poisoning, but really they are just engaging in a pitiful and obvious illusion. I'm bringing that up, half-ridiculing it, and half-pointing-out it's counter-productive to what they actually want.
>yet see no issue with a multi-hundred-billionaire dictating what is and isn't allowed on a major internet platform
Where exactly did I mention that I support or even care about Musk's attempted takeover of Twitter :) ? and who do you think controls facebook, youtube or reddit, the progressive spaces who ban you when you look funnily in their general direction? or are billionaires only bad when they hold opinions you don't like ?
>Your sentence is grammatically incorrect
Congratulations on noticing the obvious, that's kinda the whole point of the example. 'They' doesn't make sense for a known person of a definite gender, your examples are all assuming the default usage of it as a placeholder for somebody of an unknown general gender, but the moment you start using it to refer to a specific person you start running into issues like whether to use "is" or "are".
>singular they has been attested since the 14th century
OK ? how is this relevant ? where did I express problems with the fact that 'they' can be used to refer to a single unknown person ?
what does your last point even mean? are you objecting to the idea that transphobia is bad? Nobody is suggesting not talking about transphobia. I didn't even say i agreed with censoring anything. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the stuff that does get censored is stuff that isn't adding anything meaningful to the conversation and is explicitly argued in bad faith.
>are you objecting to the idea that transphobia is bad?
Well, considering this word can be basically JIT-redefined to mean anything on the fly, I wouldn't say this question is necessarily meaningful without some shared state. What I can say is that I would never like or support making fun of people for things they can't change, if your meaning of 'transphobia' includes that, sure that's bad.
But you know what else is bad? religious authority. The existence of a vague and ill-defined sin that a select class of people can arbitarily expand and contract it's definition to include and exclude anything and anyone they like or dislike, and civil authorities and institutions bending over backward to please that class. Transphobia is the modern day heresy, it's something you can throw at someone without the slightest understanding what they have said and get a mob to descend on them if you get your timing right. Lgbt 'acceptance' groups are strikingly similar to the fanatically religous, down to the particular language used to redirect criticism and pretend they are open to dissent.
>Nobody is suggesting not talking about transphobia.
In order for this to be a real 'talk', and not just a one-directional sermon between identical replicas, you have to allow people who are hostile to the artificially-dominant stance. Those who think transphobia isn't a real problem, or those who think it's a real but exaggerated, and so on and so forth. I'm not seeing any of that on any trans conversation I have ever seen on social media, all I see is an incredibly aritifical and incredibly religious "As We All Know Tran Lives Matter, Much More Than The Rest Of Us Actually", it reminds me of when dictators invite themselves to staged talkshows and pretend that the conversations aren't scripted.
>I'm just pointing out that a lot of the stuff that does get censored is stuff that isn't adding anything meaningful to the conversation
Considering the amount of censoring and manipulation that happens on social media, I think that's not convincing argument for censorship. If you kill 90% of humans you're going to eradicate an aweful lot of diseases, if you imprison 70% of people you're going to catch a lot of criminals, etc... Any strategy where you do the same thing to a significant percentage of the population is going to work more or less like random guessing aka a 50% coin flip, unless you're really unlucky or the population is really skewed. You're better off measuring ratios of where it works and where it doesn't work.
Sorry, a person's gender identity just isn't that interesting, and the extra cognitive load of remembering pronouns isn't something I'm willing to bear.
I'm learning Japanese and they have dozens of pronouns, perhaps hundreds of them. Not only is someone's gender identity bound to their pronoun, but other important aspects are bound as well such as job and age. I don't see anything wrong with introducing a few more to the English language, we've been too restrictive for too long and the language is just getting downright creaky.
Some of the recent pronouns I've seen are barely pronounceable. Getting others to refer to you in an unwieldy way seems more like a power play to me.
We already have some titles that signal achievement, like Doctor. I'd be for introducing more of them. Maybe we can get rid of the hereditary ones, too.
It's easier to just think of it like someone's name. Even if someone's name is hard to pronounce, we generally make an effort *if* we want to socialize with them.
I won't disagree there's power plays going on. Lots of people glob onto any well-intentioned movement to push their own egos. But I'm more concerned with being kind to those in the margins than accidentally validating a narcissist. Idk. I get where you're coming from. But. A lot of these people are genuinely not "he" or "her" and it's just kind of degrading to force them into one of those buckets.
it not being interesting to you doesn't mean it isn't incredibly important to them. The fact that it is incredibly important to them is obvious, and the "cognitive load" you're talking about is completely trivial. If you're not willing to take even the tiniest effort to make the people around you feel welcome, you may be the one being narcissistic.
Count me as another long-time HN user who refuses on principle to play the My Pronouns game. Burn me at the proverbial stake if you will, or bring out the HR version of the portable guillotine—but I will never, ever knuckle under to the heresy hunters and virtue signallers.
>bring out the HR version of the portable guillotine
>I will never, ever knuckle under to the heresy hunters
My god you really need to take yourself way less seriously. Is this what happens when you've lived your life in first-world middle class comfort? You think you're a martyr for... being slightly impolite to people?
In my view (and actually the view of a lot of people, given the responses in this thread), it has almost nothing to do with politeness and everything to do with avoiding being manipulated by wokeists.
I don't quite get your stance. You're free not to use those words. It's not like it is against the law to not use those pronouns. It is a simple and nearly effortless courtesy, that you can ignore if you want, with the consequence that people may think you're a twat and treat you accordingly.
Like, you're not mandated by law to greet someone with "good morning" instead of saying "fuck you". Yet it is widely understood that if you do this and refuse to say good morning, people will be upset and become hostile towards you. It's a perfect analogous situation. I'm not really sure what you want.
It's no more coercive than any other social norm. If you act disrespectful to the people around you, they will treat you accordingly. Everyone everywhere accepts this in 99% of situations and it is interesting to see the specific exceptions they make.
Around 20 years ago I fell in with a bunch of screenwriter wannabes. Roughly 100 people, plus or minus, including myself. A difficult, highly competitive creative field.
Every person in that group who worked hard at it has had success at some level. That varies from making distributed indie films to running a network television show, but some level of success.
None of the successful people half-assed it, none of the hard workers utterly failed, none of the half-assed people made it.
The degree of success is largely out of your control. Innate ability, luck, etc are all factors. But the time and effort expended are in your control, and they're the primary factor of being able to make a run of it.
every exceptionally talented person/group is unlikely to show up in the exact circumstances that they do. In a thunderstorm, each individual tree has a very low chance of being struck by lightning, but nobody is surprised that some tree is struck by lightning.
Of course, to realize their potential they also had to work hard, and collaborating with other exceptionally talented artists also no doubt helped.
I would also push back on the idea that the music they created as a group was much better than what came after. George, in particular, released arguably his best work (all things must pass) after the breakup, and both john and paul released great albums afterward (imagine, ram)
One argument for genius is the scene where McCartney literally creates Get Back out of thin air in a few minutes time. It's magical to watch. I don't even like the song.
That said: All Things Must Pass is unquestionably George's best work and the overall best Beatle solo album. But I'd argue that every other solo album was considerably less interesting than, say, Abbey Road or Revolver. Imagine has two classics, some interesting stuff, and some filler.
Unquestionably the best Beatles solo album? Ummm, no. Plastic Ono Band is the best solo album, and the second is Ram. All Things Must Pass is somewhere up there, but most of it is boring filler.
all things must pass is weird, because if it were a double album that just elided the 3rd disc there would be basically no filler on it at all, but that last third of the album is just not up to par with the rest of it at all. I think if you're willing to ignore that disc you can make the argument that it is the best post-beatles solo album. Those other two albums are also great and definitely in the conversation
none of the post-beatles albums are as iconic as the big beatles albums, but i think at least all things must pass and ram hold up very well compared to the classic beatles albums. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you either is better than abbey road or revolver (which are two of my favorite albums ever) but they are in the neighborhood
hospitals being overrun doesn't just affect the unvaccinated, it affects anybody who needs medical attention. just allowing the hospitals to get overrun is not a reasonable option
I think the problem is that there isn't really any compelling evidence to suggest that men are more drawn to engineering because of biology. I would actually invert your last paragraph: there are so many plausible extrinsic reasons that men are more likely to go into STEM than women that it doesn't make sense to try to explain away these gender gaps as being due to some intrinsic difference.
I think it's fair to say that you can believe that the difference is biological without it being sexist. But it is also true that many people who hold this belief are sexist (in fact most misogynists probably do believe this), so people being hesitant to give a platform to people taking this angle is understandable.
> there isn't really any compelling evidence to suggest that men are more drawn to engineering because of biology.
That's completely false. There's lots of published research on this subject. The existence of said evidence is routinely being denied, but there have been numerous studies. One of the most famous studies established that female infants tend to be more interested in looking at human faces than boy infants, and boys generally more interested in looking at things.
This is generally referred to as a "things vs people" preference. With women generally being more people oriented, and men being more "thing" oriented. Again, there is no relationship to performance here. Nobody is claiming that either of these is better than the other. It's just a very consistent finding across many many studies, and the fact that this is still controversial boggles the mind. Politics are preventing us, as a species, from properly understanding ourselves.
If you think this preference for things vs people is due to culture, consider that this kind of toy preference exists in monkeys as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9xXyw2f7g
it may be true that women are and always have been less interested in pursuing STEM subjects, but it is basically impossible to draw any conclusions about each sex's "strengths" from that fact.
The tech world is notoriously unwelcoming to women, tons of unconscious biases push women away from STEM, societal pressure/general atmosphere tends to encourage women to focus on things other than their career, etc. In light of all that it is hard to say whether women don't want to get into STEM because of some natural disinclination, or simply because all of these other things make STEM less desirable for them.
> People in the US are no longer allowed to question the legitimacy of their elections on most social media platforms.
> Yeah, sure you can be banned for questioning if an untransitioned man wearing a wig is really a women, but this isn't what most people are concerned about.
> the guy produced "conspiracy" content but it's really high quality stuff with no hate at all.
> I'm not coming at this from any political position.
