This is a special post for quick takes by Peter Curtis. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I have an - as of yet - unfinished and disorganised book that I was planning toward resolving misconceptions around tolerance, which proposes a solution to a shared value system that will resolve contentions surrounding areas such as 'free speech' laws, and definitions of 'harm'.
Following recent events concerning Linehan and Kirk, I am desperate to publish some assemblage of it. Having lost my career in concept art for stating my personal view that biological sex is real and (at least currently) immutable after being prompted for my views, I was selfishly hoping this would provide some metric of financial success on release to compensate. I don't want to regret posting it in a sub-par state, or releasing it in the wrong way, but I also don't feel like I have the luxury of waiting any longer. People are getting hurt, and people are confused.
What do I do.
If the problem is that the book is unfinished and disorganized, maybe ask an AI for help? Like, don't let it write actual text, but maybe it could help you organized the chapters in a good order, point out important parts that are missing, etc.
If publishing is the problem, ask an AI, or ask people online without telling them what kind of book this is, only that it is non-fiction.
Depending on the state of your book, could it make sense to split it into "part 1" and "part 2", so that you can release the part 1 as soon as possible, and then take some time to complete the part 2?
I'll confess that I'm so paranoid about AI scraping information I have to avoid it all together until it is published. Once it's published I'll be curious to see what it says, and I can always make a later revised version. I also have a personal ethos around not using AI being valuable in retrospect as a more authentic representation of myself, my mistakes, my biases, as a person from the 21st century. So I also want to preserve any neanderthalic elements of character, as a testament to myself, whatever they may be.
I think what I'm going to aim to do, is start publishing it as a serialised publication on Substack (not sure if there are any other platforms I could use). Probably lock it behind a paywall, but post excerpts here to Less Wrong for criticisms. Keeping the elaborations behind the main body of work, but offering the main proposals for criticism here.
Thank you for the response Viliam, much appreciated. I was in a big panic yesterday and a bit overwhelmed, I still am but I guess that is the nature of feeling under pressure to do anything.
Thoughts this morning of seeing free-speech as a rubber band with elastic properties;
During periods of agreeableness, the rubber band is relaxed, and individuals have more freedom to exercise extreme 'takes', where the general consensus is relaxed - able to dilute it.
During periods of disagreeableness, the rubber band is taut, and individuals have less freedom to exercise extreme 'takes', where the general consensus is strained.
It is the difference in the threat of observable metaphor, vs threat of observable action and intent.
As an indicator;
I think an open - and free speech - society could be measured, not only by the immeasurable nature of abstract expression, but in the measurable nature of observation that you cannot express.
i.e. women don't have bollocks.
This isn't a controversial statement, and if it is inflammatory, it is only so, because we have censored the expression of honest observation.
Where there is subjective offense;
Concessions must be made on a discretionary basis, not a mandated one.
This morning, I have refined the previous text.
In addition, I am now considering how this also explains social dynamics and the abstract nature of 'being on the same page'.
Where individuals understand their environment to agree on issues, they are able to have extreme 'takes' (humour) where they view metaphor. The band is relaxed.
Where individuals understand their environment to disagree on issues, they are unable to have extreme 'takes' (serious) where they view threat. The band is taut.
This is when a subject becomes 'sensitive', and where conversation requires tact, and deliberation, to find common ground. If this is achieved, the social dynamic becomes relaxed, if it is not, the dynamic remains taut.
This is why conversation is a necessity.
Gender (Subjective, Phenotype) is to Sex (Objective, Biological Markers, Genotype)
similarily in what
Race (Subjective, Phenotype) is to Ethnicity (Objective, as Genealogy, Genotype)
Effectively the left category becomes ‘identity’ and subject to ideation, whereas the right becomes ‘empirical’ and subject to observable metrics.
Thinking more about it; it almost makes gender and race completely redundant terminology (outside of discussing their concepts in retrospect, or theoretical exercise).
Subjective aspects - including aspects otherwise assosicated with Ethnicity such as cultural adoption or association - are ideated, which might suggest it deserving exclusion from Ethnicity as a category.
Phenotypical aspects i.e. skin pigment, hair / eye colour, feet size are visual traits - and increasingly expressions - sometimes resulting from conditions or medicalisation - not representitive of sex or ethnic genotype / genealogy .
Whereas Sex and Ethnicity denote measurable categories of empirical information.
Just my thoughts for the day.