Comment by decius on Breaking quarantine is negligence. Why are democracies acting like we can only ask nicely? · 2020-03-25T01:06:11.998Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm 30% sure that, if a legal challenge is filed, it will be dismissed as moot because by the time a judge hears the case, the emergency will be over and the emergency orders rescinded. Most of the remaining chance is on "The court does not rule on the merits for a specific reason that I don't predict", and the courts ruling on the merits of the ban, given that someone challenges it, seem very unlikely.

Frankly, my civic position is that the current situation is one in which temporary government overreach is appropriate, but I'm also experiencing a thing where I want to reject the precedent that the government *saying* that there's an emergency is sufficient to invoke unconstitutional powers.

I can actually have it both ways: What is sufficient for the emergency unconstitutional powers to be invoked is the *public* acknowledging that there is an emergency. But that terrifies me, because by around week 15 of the lockdown a large segment of the public is going to believe that there is no longer an emergency worth those powers, and the Just Rebellion Against the Tyranny will begin.

Comment by decius on Can crimes be discussed literally? · 2020-03-24T23:44:36.337Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Why is it a useful description to call the legal system a criminal organization, to define physicians as a social class, to describe X as a fraudulent enterprise, or other things in that class?

The only reason I can see is to make an attack against the thing you are describing, because if you do not intend the attack then the description is not useful- if describing an institution as a criminal organization doesn't mean that it should be dismantled (or better), then describing an institution as a criminal organization means nothing.

If saying that a title is nothing more than a social class doesn't also say that the title is without significant meaning, then saying that a title is nothing more than a social class is an exercise in definitional naval-gazing (by which I mean both a somewhat hyperbolic sense of the literal meaning and also as a dismissal of the practice of using tautological descriptions that parse as attacks without meaning them as attacks).

And so forth.

If you want to describe the problems, you have to describe, or at least cogently assert the problems. The problem that you are asserting about the American legal system seems to be related to the idea that it accepts some kinds of implicit coercion in plea bargains, but forbids other forms of coercion, and makes people claim that they haven't been coerced at all when accepting plea bargains? You never actually said why that's bad, and I honestly don't believe that it is bad- Sure, it's a little bit hypocritical; it might even be a violation of law. And the practice of plea bargaining is problematic from the start- but it would be even more problematic if there was no attempt to ensure that suspects were free from untoward coercion.

When you suggest that physicians are "actually nothing but" a social class with certain characteristics, you aren't communicating anything about the core point that being good at healing people is insufficient to become a physician. Those two words are the attacking part of the statement: "Physicians are a social class with specific privileges, social roles, and barriers to entry." is not an attack, it's an uncontroversial background statement that could easily lead into a point.

I can see why fudging times in healthcare might be bad, since recording inaccurate information about treatment could possibly result in making decisions based on inaccurate information, and developing bad norms about "insignificant" falsifications risks people falsifying more significant details. But I have to draw from my own knowledge to reach that conclusion; you seem to stop at "the system would grind to a halt if people simply refused to [follow the normal behavior in the system]", without reference to the bad things that the normal behavior in the system might cause.

"X relies on asserting Y, when we know Y to be false" is not intrinsically a problem. In most cases where "Asserting Y when it is common knowledge that Y is false" is a problem, it is a problem because it can lead to asserting Z when it is not common knowledge that Z is false and where belief in Z might be a problem.

Comment by decius on Breaking quarantine is negligence. Why are democracies acting like we can only ask nicely? · 2020-03-24T23:07:53.257Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

That law is void, because the right of the people to assemble peaceably shall not be infringed. Requiring that people check their temperature in order to go outside violates several constitutional rights, including due process.

You might be able to make a law which covers people who have been formally diagnosed with an infectious disease. But that law could not be passed in time to not be moot.

Comment by decius on Breaking quarantine is negligence. Why are democracies acting like we can only ask nicely? · 2020-03-24T23:04:27.620Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Due process isn't restricted to finding that a person has done anything wrong.

Frankly, I think that the government should simply shut down the courts for the duration of the emergency, enforce quarantine without regard to the law, and then claim sovereign immunity afterwards, while acknowledging that it had questionable constitutional authority to do so. The pretense of rule of law in US government has already been abandoned, we might as well get some practical use out of that before the revolution.

Comment by decius on Anthropic effects imply that we are more likely to live in the universe with interstellar panspermia · 2020-03-10T19:39:53.043Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Doesn't the anthropic effects also imply that abiogenesis is easier than studies suggest it is, for reasons that we don't yet understand?

If the chance of our science looking like it does, given that abiogenesis is trivial, is as high as one in ten billion, wouldn't the anthropic effect make it an even proposition? Is the evidence against abiogenesis being trivial really 10,000,000,000:1 against? (roughly p=10^-11)?

Comment by decius on If I interact with someone with nCov for an hour, how likely am I to get nCov? · 2020-03-08T01:33:24.134Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That's not particularly useful without the base rate of infection in those provinces, and it appears to at least double count (assuming 'close contact' is a reciprocal relationship, every case of two people in close contact both being infected would count as two cases of a close contact being infected).

Based on the upper estimate of 2.5 for R_0, those numbers suggest that the average person has fewer than 50 'close contacts', and likely even fewer.

Comment by decius on Coronavirus: Justified Practical Advice Thread · 2020-02-29T03:34:51.366Z · score: 2 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Use hand sanitizer or wash hands with soapy water frequently- after touching any doorknob exposed to an epidemic, at a minimum. (This includes doorknobs that only you touch, if there's a chance that you're in an infections asymptomatic state). Other triggers include the normal cases of before cooking and before eating.

Comment by decius on The Intelligent Social Web · 2020-01-09T12:19:12.956Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The subtext is only clear in retrospect.

Comment by decius on The LessWrong 2018 Review · 2019-11-21T04:54:46.506Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Is the intent in the review phase to display the number of nominations received (which will impact which posts get reviewed) or not (which fails to display information that I am likely to find useful in using the list of posts that have been nominated by enough people to form a reading list)?

Comment by decius on Robust Agency for People and Organizations · 2019-07-22T15:41:11.922Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Is the thought behind "Wait as long as possible before hiring people" that you will be better able to spread values to people when you are busier, or that you can hire a bunch of people at once and gain economy of scale when indoctrinating them?

Because the naive view would be to hire slowly and well in advance, and either sync up with the new hires or terminate them if they can't get into the organizational paradigm you're trying to construct, and that requires more slack.

Comment by decius on The Schelling Choice is "Rabbit", not "Stag" · 2019-06-09T00:20:22.955Z · score: 7 (3 votes) · LW · GW

One error of the stag/rabbit hunt framing is that it makes it explicit that it's a coordination problem, not a values problem. To frame it differently would require that the stag and rabbit hunts not produce different utility numbers, but yield different resources or certainties of resource. If a rabbit hunt yields 3d2 rabbits hunted per hunter, but the stag hunt yields 1d2-1 stag hunted if all hunters work together and 0 if they don't, then even with a higher expected yield of meat and of hide from the stag hunt, for some people the rabbit hunt might yield higher expected utility, since the certainty of not starving is much more utility than an increase in the amount of hides.

In order to confidently assert that a Schelling point exists, one should have viewed the situation from everyone's point of view and applying their actual goals- NOT look at everyone's point of view and apply your goal, or the average goals, or the goals they think they have.

Comment by decius on Interpersonal Entanglement · 2019-06-03T19:36:14.857Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

An answer of "There is probably one but I can't figure out what it is." is equivalent to an answer of "I can't find one."

I'm not making a mathematical conjecture that is probably true but might not have a proof; I'm asking what is wrong with engineering fully sentient catgirls who want to serve people in a volcano fortress that isn't also wrong with allowing existing people to follow their dreams of changing themselves into sentient catgirls and serving people in a volcano fortress.

Comment by decius on Interpersonal Entanglement · 2019-06-02T23:22:22.167Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Is there any significant difference between finding sentient beings who self-modify into becoming sentient catgirls for the purpose of serving you in your volcano fortress and engineering de novo sentient catgirls who desire to serve you in your volcano fortress?

Comment by decius on Overconfident talking down, humble or hostile talking up · 2018-12-06T13:36:50.228Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I don't think it's inherently difficult to tell the difference between someone who is speaking N levels above you and someone who is speaking N+1 levels above you. The one speaking at a higher level is going to expand on all of the things they describe as errors, giving *more complex* explanations.

The difficulty is that it's impossible to tell if someone who is higher level than you is wrong, or telling a sophisticated lie, or correct, or some other option. The only way to understand how they reached their conclusion is to level up to their level and understand it the hard way.

There's a related problem, where it's nigh impossible to tell if someone who is actually at level N but speaking at level N+X is making shit up completely unless you are above the level they are (and can spot errors in their reasoning).

Take a very simple case: A smart kid explaining kitchen appliances to a less smart kid. First he talks about the blender, and how there's an electric motor inside the base that makes the gear thingy go spinny, and that goes through the pitcher and makes the blades go spinny and chop stuff up. Then he talks about the toaster, and talks about the hot wires making the toast go, and the dial controls the timer that pops the toast out.

Then he goes +x over his actual knowledge level, and says that the microwave beams heat radiation into the food, created by the electronics, and that the refrigerator uses an 'electric cooler' (the opposite of an electric heater) to make cold that it pumps into the inside, and the insulated sides keep it from making the entire house cold.

Half of those are true explanations, and half of those are bluffs, but someone who is barely has the understanding needed to verify the first two won't have the understanding needed to refute the last two. If someone else corrects the wrong descriptions, said unsophisticated observer would have to use things other than the explanation to determine credibility (in the toy cases given, a good explanation could level up the observer enough to see the bluff, but in the case of +5 macroeconomics that is impractical). If the bluffing actor tries to refute the higher-level true explanation, they merely need to bluff more; people high enough level to see the bluff /already weren't fooled/, and people of lower level see the argument see the higher level argument settle into an equilibrium or cycle isomorphic to all parties saying "That's not how this works, that's not how anything works; this is how that works", and can only distinguish between them by things other than the content of what they say (bias, charisma, credentials, tribal affiliation, or verified track records are all within the Overton Window for how to select who to believe).

Comment by decius on How to Build a Lumenator · 2018-08-12T08:55:57.718Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How useful would it be to have someone who produced luminators that were pegboards with lights mounted via zip ties or something equally aesthetically bad? If the labor of collecting and assembling the components can efficiently be outsourced into buying a nonstandard light fixture, it might be more accessible.

Comment by decius on How to Build a Lumenator · 2018-08-12T08:51:09.635Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Are you suggesting blacklightboxes?

Comment by decius on How to Build a Lumenator · 2018-08-12T08:50:15.657Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Has anyone who has gotten relief by using luninators done rigorous a/b testing with different temperatures/colors or intensity or duration or other possibly important variables?

Not just gold standard clinical trials, something like “I tried color a for a week and logged 3 episodes, but color b for a week resulted in 8” could be informative for people deciding which type of bulb to get.

Comment by decius on Cash transfers are not necessarily wealth transfers · 2017-12-03T21:17:53.183Z · score: 12 (4 votes) · LW · GW

If 20 percent of children in third grade could read at at least the first grade level, what percentage of children that age who didn't attend school could do so?

Comment by decius on The Darwin Game · 2017-11-26T07:09:25.287Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The mockingbird: Find whatever method the current leader(s) is/are using to enable self-cooperation, and find the way to mimic them with a small advantage. (e.g. if they use a string of 0,1,4,5s to self-identify, spam 4 until they identify as you, then identify how to get into the side of mutual cooperation that is sometimes up a point.

Tit-for-tat with correction: Start with a even distribution, then play what they played last round, except if the total last round was above five and they played higher, reduce the value you played by the amout that exceeded five last round; if the total last round was below five and they played lower, increase the value you play this round by the shortfall. (If the values played were the same, adjust by half the difference, randomly selecting between two values if a .5 change is indicated. (Loses at most 5 points to fivebot, loses about half a point per round to threebot, leaves some on the table with twobot, but self-cooperates on round two with 80% probability.

Comment by decius on Living in an Inadequate World · 2017-11-11T17:45:29.577Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nominal GDP also increases by 1000 times, and everyone's currency savings increases by 1k-fold, but the things which are explictly in nominal currency rather than in notes will keep the same number. The effect would be to destroy people who plan on using payments from debtors to cover future expenses, in the same way they would as if their debtors defaulted and paid only one part in a thousand of the debt, but without any default occuring.

Comment by decius on Moloch's Toolbox (1/2) · 2017-11-07T01:18:33.411Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

My predcition is that having a sincerely held belief to 'defy Moloch whenever possible' would result in suffering the harm caused by being the first actors to switch from the worse Nash equilibrium.

Let's talk about how timed-collective-action-threshold-conditional-commitment.

Comment by decius on In defence of epistemic modesty · 2017-10-31T11:07:14.567Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The very most important thing about having the all-things-considered view is not multiply propogating the consensus belief, especially when the information flow is one-way: if you report your credence after updating from a consensus that you didn't agree with, but without causing the consensus to update at least a tiny bit towards your belief, then someone who updates their inside view with the view you have after updating on others, and on the view that others have without updating on you, will develop and propogate errors even if everyone involved is doing the math diligently and accurately.

Comment by decius on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism · 2017-06-29T04:04:08.811Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

There will always be tasks at which better (Meta-)*Cognition is superior to the available amounts of computing power and tuning search protocols.

It becomes irrelevant if either humans aren't better than easily created AI at that level of meta or AI go enough levels up to be a failure mode.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-06-29T03:59:59.491Z

No individual cares about anything other than the procedures. Thus, the organization as a whole cares only about the procedures. The behavior is similar /with the procedures that exist/ to caring about fitness, but there is also a procedure to change procedure.

If the organization cared about fitness, the procedure to change the height/weight standards would be based on fitness. As it is, it is more based on politics. Therefore I conclude that the Army cares more about politics and procedures than fitness, and any behavior that looks like caring about fitness is incidental to their actual values.

Comment by decius on Filter on the way in, Filter on the way out... · 2017-05-30T23:41:08.616Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The listener's filter needs as an input the nature of the speaker's filter, or information is irretrievably lost.

The speaker's filter needs as an input the nature of the listener's filter, or information is irretrievably lost.

Having two codependent filters like that has a lot of stable non-lossy outcomes. One easy one to describe is the one where both filters are empty.

Unless you can convince me of a specific pair of filters such that many more people that I want to talk to use those two filters than use empty filters (increasing the number of people with whom I can communicate losslessly) or that provide some benefit superior to empty filters, I'll continue to use empty filters as much as possible, even if I have to aggressively enforce that choice on others.

Signalling higher status by applying 'tact' when I don't want to be insulting is not a benefit to me. Giving others more deference than myself regarding what filters to apply is not a benefit to me. If I want to insult someone, I can do that as effectively by insulting them as a tact culture communicator could by speaking without tact.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-30T23:25:10.634Z

.... will banish you from the tribe.

The only person I heard of go to the brig was one who broke into barracks and stole personal property. Falsifying official records or running off to run a side job as a real estate broker was more of a '30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, reduction in rate to the next inferior rate, forfeiture of 1/2 month's base pay for 2 months' thing.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-30T02:42:00.826Z

The Army works just fine, and has goals that aren't ours. Why not steal much of their model /which works and has been proven to work/?

Especially if the problematic aspects of Army culture can be avoided by seeing the skulls on the ground.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-30T02:35:51.097Z

Part of the program is separating people who don't lose weight. That doesn't mean they care about the height/weight, only that the next box is 'process for separation'.

There's not a lot other than adherence to procedure that most of the military actually does care about.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T21:06:48.597Z

I read that "this is causing substantial harm" would be insufficient to cancel a norm, but expect that "this is creating a physical hazard" would be enough to reject the norm mid-cycle. The problem is that every edge has edge cases, and if there's a false negative in a mideterm evaluation of danger...

Maybe I'm concluding that the paramilitary aesthetic will be more /thing/ than others are. In my observation authoritarian paramilitary styled groups are much more /thing/ than other people expect them to be. (My own expectations, OTOH are expected to be accurate because subjectivity.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T08:14:32.506Z

"Last fortnight, we canceled [Idea which appeared to be horrible seconds after implementing it], which we continued for an entire fortnight because of our policy. Today we look at all available evidence and must decide if the meta-experiment generates benefits greater than the costs."

If you have no norm for evaluating that rule explicitly, it doesn't mean that you won't evaluate it. Maybe evaluating it every time it applies is excessive, but pretending that you won't quickly learn to put exit clauses in experiments that are likely to need them 'notwithstanding any other provision' is failing to accurately predict.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T08:02:00.757Z

That's not because he didn't do the exercise. Bootcamp doesn't care if you lose weight, they only care if you execute the weight loss program. If you doesn't meet any of the body proportion standards, you just have to perform extra exercise.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:58:18.654Z

A defection would be any case in which a member did not arrive on time or participate fully. Period.

I'm suggesting that there be a formal process by which a member arrives late, performs ten pushups, and joins the event in progress. At the conclusion of the event, he says "My Uber driver was involved in a minor collision on my way here and that delayed me for too long to arrive on time." and (by secret ballot?) the Army votes and some adequate margin of them excuse the failure.

The other aspect I suggested is that a Dragon might say "[event] is next week and I would like to attend but it conflicts with exercise. May I be excused from exercise for [event]?". Again, the Army would vote and decide if the absence is excused.

I'm at a loss as to what to do to sanction a member who is not excused. The military has a long list of 'corrective actions' and 'punishments' that they can apply only because they don't constitute 'kidnapping' or other crimes. I guess you could possibly make those '[task] or removal from the Army', but that runs straight into the eviction problem. I think that it's absolutely critical that there's a credible threat underlying the discipline, precisely so that it is less likely to be needed, and the only one I find plausible is ejection, which becomes complicated because of Housing law and morality.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:43:43.294Z

I'm managing/leading an internet gaming community, and the only tools I've ever had to use are selection and conversation.

I've had one person leave because their goal in joining was to acquire enough information and power to cause harm and they were so unsubtle about it that I was able to identify that and stop them. One additional person left because our norms of 'don't cheat' and 'be nice to our friends' were given to him gently by everyone in voice chat every time they were violated.

Oddly enough, both of those people ended up joining a specific competing group that held neither of the norms 'don't cheat' nor 'don't make public rape threats towards people who call out your cheating'.

And my selection method? Be public and pushy about what kind of norms you have, and push away people who don't already have and want to follow those norms.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:27:08.425Z

That's only useful if the outside advisor has some level of veto power. I'd suggest something like allowing them to trigger a discussion meeting /outside of Dragon Army Territory/ with the advised, optionally including the Commander and/or other members, and also at the option of the advisor including legal counsel or a medical practitioner.

Not because I expect anyone to need the safeguards involved, but because making those explicitly part of the Expectations makes it harder to coerce somebody into not getting help. Making coercion of the type "You're fine, no need to waste time and leaving your ingroup to try to explain to some /outsider/ what's going on, they won't understand anyway" ring red alarm bell flags is a feature.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:16:36.379Z

I see a possible failure mode where a member of a participant's family not into any rationalist community sees the Dragon Army rules and pattern-matches the rules and behavior into 'cult' (not arguing whether that pattern match is correct here, just saying that it might happen).

A family member concerned that their loved one might be involved in a dangerous cult might take extraordinary measures to remove that person from the situation, which might get very ugly.

I'm not sure that a nonparticipating buddy is sufficient to mitigate the risk of 'rescue'.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:07:50.785Z

Evaluating whether to change a thing at the moment when it is maximally annoying (as would be the case in ad-hoc votes) will have different results from evaluating it at a predetermined time.

I'd suggest evaluating the policy of 'demand that an approved norm be in place until the scheduled vote' on the first scheduled vote following each scheduled vote in which 'a norm was dropped that people wanted to have it dropped mid-cycle but couldn't because of the policy'.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T07:02:33.252Z

It's hard to go from being the boss of someone to being their subordinate, and vice versa. I think it's more plausible to shift into an advisory, strategic, consultant, or executive role rather than swap.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T06:59:02.878Z

The only way there would be nothing useful to learn is if there was a complete failure due to circumstances outside of the influence of anyone involved, such as an earthquake that halted the plan. Even then a quick note to that effect would be of use.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-28T06:46:50.377Z

For someone who thinks that they are immune to being shunned, you sure do use an anononym.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-27T01:22:14.877Z

Having a well-calibrated belief in your own reliability is better than being overconfident in yourself.

Making yourself more reliable is also an improvement. Whether that improvement is worth the cost is beyond my ability to guess.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-27T01:19:54.361Z

If you don't commit to publishing negative results, I commit to refusing to trust any positive results you publish.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-27T01:16:00.002Z

21 hours most weeks is 3 hours per day, or 2 hours during each weekday and ~10 for the weekend. Just making sure that your daily and weekly estimates don't contain math errors, not saying anything about the sufficiency of those numbers.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-27T01:05:01.555Z

Losing one's job to avoid missing a house meeting (needed to work late) is the kind of bad priority that should be addressed.

Perhaps some kind of explicit measure where housemates judge and excuse or not each case on a case-by-case basis, including a measure to request leave in advance as well as in arrears?

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-27T00:57:04.800Z

Part right.

Most of the arguments you set forth are more fallacious and less relevant than not liking all the author's fiction.

But that's because most of the arguments you set forth were of the type "Bay Area rationalists have had a lot of problems and therefore this specific plan will have similar problems."

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-26T00:04:50.923Z

I would also add the rules that cover the edge cases:

A Dragon does not skirt the letter or intent of the rule, or attempt to comply minimally with either.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-05-26T00:00:34.033Z

"roughly 90 hours a month (~1.5hr/day plus occasional weekend activities)" My math says that those weekend activities total the 1.5 hours every day has and also 10 additional hours every weekend.

"Any Dragon who leaves during the experiment is responsible for continuing to pay their share of the lease/utilities/house fund, unless and until they have found a replacement person the house considers acceptable, or have found three potential viable replacement candidates and had each one rejected. After six months, should the experiment dissolve, the house will revert to being simply a house, and people will bear the normal responsibility of "keep paying until you've found your replacement." "

It seems counterproductive to have people who have left the experiment living in the same house until they are replaced. Exit terms such as 'two months notice, or less if a suitable replacement can be found or otherwise agreed' are less coercive.

Comment by decius on Allegory On AI Risk, Game Theory, and Mithril · 2017-02-17T16:23:42.495Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

You assume that balrogs can only be stopped by unmined bedrock. Since the chance of a given balrog being stopped by bedrock but not by the combined efforts of the dwarves is muniscule compared to the chance of a weak one that can be stopped by mithril-clad soldiers or a strong one that can dig through mere stone, the best defense against balrogs is to mine and guard the mines well.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-01-09T16:39:03.556Z

is it the post-truth world where true facts are lies because of reasons?

The false statement is "… therefore to be fair we should multiply every woman's wage by 10/7." Instead of something like "… so to promote equality we should stop discouraging fort grade girls from studying math."

Those look like not-even-false claims because they almost are.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-01-09T16:33:09.562Z

I would only agree that every major political party uses post-truth rhetorical methods and it is sad that each of them does. If you want to propose a unit of measurement for truthiness I'd consider comparing them.

Comment by Decius on [deleted post] 2017-01-09T16:27:24.505Z

A political group composed only of people who prioritize the good of the country over their own subtribe or self will lack the support needed to flourish.

It's not that people disagree or don't know about the object level facts. It's that people are actively fighting to gain relative advantage over others. And that is a cultural problem, not a political one.