Just wanted to say I signed up for a trial on the strength of this pitch, so well done! It sounds like something that could be really useful for me.
frankybegs
Karma: 180
“it is a straightforwardly observable fact that, for many people, their shoulder advisors occasionally offer thoughts and insights that the people literally would not have thought of, otherwise.”
How can this be observable, let alone straightforwardly?
This is reaching Cade Metz levels of slippery justification.
He doesn’t make the accusation super explicit, but (a) people here would be angrier if he did, not less angry
How is this relevant? As Elizabeth says, it would be more honest and epistemically helpful if he made an explicit accusation. People here might well be angry about that, but a) that’s not relevant to what is right and b) that’s because, as you admit, that accusation could not be substantiated. So how is it acceptable to indirectly insinuate that accusation instead?
(Also c), I think you’re mistaken in that prediction).
(b) that might actually pose legal issues for the NYT (I’m not a lawyer).
Relatedly, if you cannot outright make a claim because it is potentially libellous, you shouldn’t use vague insinuation to imply it to your massive and largely-unfamiliar-with-the-topic audience.
However, Scott has no possible gripe here.
You have yourself outlined several possible gripes. I’d have a gripe with someone dishonestly implying an enormously inflammatory accusation to their massive audience without any evidence for it, even if it were secretly true (which I still think you need to do more work to establish).
I think there are multiple further points to be made about why it’s unacceptable, outside of the dark side epistemology angle above. Here’s Scott’s direct response to exactly your accuastion, that despite Metz having been dishonest in his accusation, he does truly believe what Metz implied:
This is far enough from my field that I would usually defer to expert consensus, but all the studies I can find which try to assess expert consensus seem crazy. A while ago, I freaked out upon finding a study that seemed to show most expert scientists in the field agreed with Murray’s thesis in 1987 - about three times as many said the gap was due to a combination of genetics and environment as said it was just environment. Then I freaked out again when I found another study (here is the most recent version, from 2020) showing basically the same thing (about four times as many say it’s a combination of genetics and environment compared to just environment). I can’t find any expert surveys giving the expected result that they all agree this is dumb and definitely 100% environment and we can move on (I’d be very relieved if anybody could find those, or if they could explain why the ones I found were fake studies or fake experts or a biased sample, or explain how I’m misreading them or that they otherwise shouldn’t be trusted. If you have thoughts on this, please send me an email). I’ve vacillated back and forth on how to think about this question so many times, and right now my personal probability estimate is “I am still freaking out about this, go away go away go away”. And I understand I have at least two potentially irresolveable biases on this question: one, I’m a white person in a country with a long history of promoting white supremacy; and two, if I lean in favor then everyone will hate me, and use it as a bludgeon against anyone I have ever associated with, and I will die alone in a ditch and maybe deserve it. So the best I can do is try to route around this issue when considering important questions. This is sometimes hard, but the basic principle is that I’m far less sure of any of it than I am sure that all human beings are morally equal and deserve to have a good life and get treated with respect regardless of academic achievement.
I sort of agree that it’s quite plausible to infer from this that he does believe there are some between-group average differences that are genetic in origin. But I think it allows Scott several gripes with the Metz’ dishonest characterisation:
First of all, this is already significantly different, more careful and qualified than what Metz implied, and that’s after we read into it more than what Scott actually said. Does that count as “aligning yourself”?
Relatedly, even if Scott did truly believe exactly what Charles Murray does on this topic, which again I don’t think we can fairly assume, he hasn’t said that, and that’s important. Secretly believing something is different from openly espousing it, and morally it can be much different if one believes that openly espousing it could lead to it being used in harmful ways (which from the above, Scott clearly does, even in the qualified form which he may or may not believe). Scott is going to some lengths and being very careful not to espouse it openly and without qualification, and clearly believes it would be harmful to do so, so it’s clearly dishonest and misleading to suggest that he has “aligns himself” with Charles Murray on this topic. Again, this is even after granting the very shaky proposition that he secretly does align with Charles Murray, which I think we have established is a claim that cannot be substantiated.
Further, Scott, unlike Charles Murray, is very emphatic about the fact that, whatever the answer to this question, this should not affect our thinking on important issues or our treatment of anyone. Is this important addendum not elided by the idea that he ‘aligned himself’ with Charles Murray? Would not that not be a legitimate “gripe”?
And in case you or Metz would argue that those sentiments post-date the article in question, here’s an earlier Scott quote from ‘In Favor of Civilisation’:
Having joined liberal society, they can be sure that no matter what those researchers find, I and all of their new liberal-society buddies will fight tooth and nail against anyone who uses any tiny differences those researchers find to challenge the central liberal belief that everyone of every gender has basic human dignity. Any victory for me is going to be a victory for feminists as well; maybe not a perfect victory, but a heck of a lot better than what they have right now.
He’s talking about feminism and banning research into between-gender differences, there, but it and many other of Scott’s writings make it very clear that he supports equal treatment and moral consideration for all. Is this not an important detail for a journalist to include when making such an inflammatory insinuation, that could so easily be interpreted as implying the opposite?
Your position seems to amount to epistemic equivalent of ‘yes, the trial was procedurally improper, and yes the prosecutor deceived the jury with misleading evidence, and no the charge can’t actually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt- but he’s probably guilty anyway, so what’s the issue’. I think the issue is journalistic malpractice. Metz has deliberately misled his audience in order to malign Scott on a charge which you agree cannot be substantiated, because of his own ideological opposition (which he admits). To paraphrase the same SSC post quoted above, he has locked himself outside of the walled garden. And you are “Andrew Cord”, arguing that we should all stop moaning because it’s probably true anyway so the tactics are justified.
it is hard to write a NYT article
Clearly. But if you can’t do it without resorting to deliberately misleading rhetorical sleights to imply something you believe to be true, the correct response is not to.Or, more realistically, if you can’t substantiate a particular claim with any supporting facts, due to the limitations of the form, you shouldn’t include it nor insinuate it indirectly, especially if it’s hugely inflammatory. If you simply cannot fit in the “receipts” needed to substantiate a claim (which seems implausible anyway), as a journalist you should omit that claim. If there isn’t space for the evidence, there isn’t space for the accusation.
I agree on the latter example, which is a particularly unhelpful one to use unless strictly necessary, and not really analogous here anyway.
But on the lock example, what is the substantive difference? His justification seems to be ‘it was easy to do, so there’s nothing wrong with doing it’. In fact, the only difference I detect makes the doxxing look much worse. Because he’s saying ‘it was easy for me to do, so there’s nothing wrong with me doing it on behalf of the world’.
So while it’s also heat-adding, on reflection I can’t think of any real world example that fits better: wouldn’t the same justification apply to the people who hack celebrities for their private photos and publicise them? Both could argue:
It was easy for me (with my specialist journalist/hacker skills) to access this intended-to-be-private information, so I see no problem with sharing it with the world, despite the strong, clearly expressed preference of its subject that I not do so.
Not hugely important, but I want to point out because I think the concept is in the process of having its usefulness significantly diluted by overuse: that’s not a straw man. That’s just a false reason.
A straw man is when you refute an argument that your opponent didn’t make, in order to make it look like you’ve refuted their actual argument.
Apologies, I just read your reply to Joseph C.
I would like to request the information, your reservations notwithstanding. I am happy to sign a liability waiver, or anything of that nature that would make you feel comfortable. I am also happy to share as much data as it is feasible to collect, and believe I could recruit at least some controls. As I mention above, I don’t think I’ll be able to implement the intervention in its entirety, given practical and resource constraints, but given your stated interest in a ’1000 ships’ approach this seems like it could be a positive for you.
I certainly don’t “see what I’m doing”, because I wasn’t trying to do anything other than explain why your engagement with STMT seemed combative and unfairly accusatory. It did, and it does, reading it later. I hope/suspect that with the advantage of the same temporal remove, you will also see exactly why I and many others thought so.
I don’t know enough to have a valuable opinion on the wider argument, but this sentence:
“EY is a smart guy and I’m sure he could contribute to accelerating AI if he wanted to, but I don’t think him withholding information from us does anything to delay AI.”
seems straightforwardly self-contradictory.
No.
Well this isn’t helpful! I was genuinely trying to understand what the point of the quoted statement is. In the context, it seemed like that was the most reasonable interpretation. If it isn’t, then it’d be more productive to explain what you did mean.
I’m sorry that you feel misrepresented. For me, continuing to argue (in response to criticism or otherwise) that there is something wrong with STMT not taking the bet, and that their stated reason is insufficient, and making what read to me like implicit accusations of dishonesty, seems a lot like ‘making combative noise’. It’s quite an imprecise charge, though, and perhaps unhelpful of me to make.
Anyway, I certainly don’t want to be making combative noise, and policing your tone isn’t really adding anything to the (important) object-level discussion, so I’ll beat a retreat.
I just want to say I don’t think that was unclear at all. It’s fair to expect people to know the wider meaning of the word ‘alien’.
One specific thing that I’d definitely have challenged is the ‘I don’t think the New Yorker article was very fair to my point of view’. What point of view, specifically, and how was it unfair? Again, very much easier from the comfort of my office than in live conversation with him, but I would have loved to see you pin him down on this.
That seems to generalize to “no-one is allowed to make any claim whatsoever without consuming all of the information in the world”.
I would say that it generalises to ‘one shouldn’t make a confident proclamation of near-certainty without consuming what seems to be very relevant information to the truth of the claim’. Which I would agree with.
I think what is missing here is that this debate has been cited repeatedly in rationalist spaces, by people who were already quite engaged with the topic, familiar with the evidence, and in possession of carefully-formed views, as having been extremely valuable and informative, and having shifted their position significantly. I think it’s reasonable to expect someone to consume that information before claiming near-certainty on the question.
> Reasonable norms of good debate suggest relevant counterarguments should be proportional in length and readability to the original argument, which in this case is Rokos compact nine-minute post.
This seems entirely *un*reasonable to me. Some arguments simply can’t be properly made that concisely, and this principle seems to bias us towards finding snappy, simplistic explanations rather than true ones.
Someone else mentioned ‘The Pyramid and the Garden’, but I’m reminded of the sort of related argument about Atlantis in https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ : sometimes, boring reality and ‘it’s actually just a series of coincidences’ requires a lot more explaining than a neat little conspiracy theory. Not to tar the lab leak hypothesis by calling it a conspiracy theory- while of course it literally is one, it doesn’t deserve to be demeaned by the term’s modern connotation of zany insane-person nonsense- but it is easy to see why ‘these facts seems unlikely to be a coincidence’ might be easier to argue concisely than its rebuttal, and a norm where the person that can state their argument more persuasively in shortform wins doesn’t seem like one that’s going to promote optimal truth-seeking.
I don’t think someone should need to pay you thousands of dollars to engage with full arguments for and against a proposition before you claim near-certainty about it. It’s just sort of a pre-requisite for having that kind of confidence in your belief, or having it be taken seriously. Perhaps particularly when you’re not only disagreeing with the expert consensus, but calling that expertise into question because they disagree with you.
You specify a style for citation! By your own logic, this should be of academic-level rigour, surely? Pleading ‘oh it isn’t supposed to be convincing’ is the exact same motte and bailey that Matt Walker is doing with his pop-sci that he self-cites.
This is an amazing bit of work, and one of the main reasons I come to LW is to find interesting, well-supported arguments that make me revise or at least question what I believe about important stuff. This does that, and I want to send it to everyone I know. But it’s hard to do so when you undermine your credibility at points (in basically the ways that All-American Breakfast has outlined).
People are going to be motivated to preserve their dearly held beliefs about sleep, and you give them unnecessary ammo to dismiss you as an internet crazy.
I sort of went the other way from most people, in that while I came in thinking blackmail should be illegal (which I think is true of almost everyone who hasn’t really considered it in depth), I immediately was sympathetic to Robin’s argument.
But actually, by the end, I was more firmly convinced of the desirability of illegality. Zwi’s point about incentives is the most important consideration, I think: the prohibition of the most powerful material incentive to obtain and release information will make the average information release much likelier to be morally motivated, which in turns makes it more likely to be the kind of information release we want. Robin’s main contention, that it it’s a strange, arbitrarily one-sided sort of a rule, seems comparatively unimportant if it produces better outcomes.
So despite it being “hard to substantiate”, or to “find Scott saying” it, you think it’s so certainly true that a journalist is justified in essentially lying in order to convey it to his audience?
The problem with “lab-leak is unlikely, look at this 17-hour debate” is that it is too short an argument, not a too long one.
It isn’t an argument, it’s a citation.
I don’t think a 17 hour debate is “inaccessible” to someone who is invested in this issue and making extremely strong, potentially very seriously libellous claims without having investigated some of the central arguments on the question at hand.
A foundational text in some academic field might take 17 hours to read, but you would still expect someone to have read it before making a priori wild claims that contradicted the expert consensus of that field very radically. I don’t think you’d take that person seriously at all if they hadn’t, and would in fact consider it very irresponsible (and frankly idiotic) for them to even make the claims until they had.
That’s not to say that this debate should be treated as foundational to the study of this question, exactly, but… well, as I said elsewhere:
This debate has been cited repeatedly in rationalist spaces, by people who were already quite engaged with the topic, familiar with the evidence, and in possession of carefully-formed views, as having been extremely valuable and informative, and having shifted their position significantly.”
I think that makes familiarising yourself with those arguments (whether from the debate or another equivalent-or-better source) a prerequisite for making the kind of strong, confident claims Roko is making. At the moment, he’s making those claims without the information necessary to be anywhere near as confident as he is.
Isn’t the fact that it’s the largest wet market in central China relevant here? Surely that greatly increases the chance of it travelling to Wuhan specifically in a zoonotic origin scenario, because animals are brought there from all around.