Posts
Comments
Apparently both Bailey and I agree about your bias. Accounting for (and making disclosures of conflict of interest about) biases isn't "meta-level sneering". It's a fundamental part of science.
Per Disclosure of conflict of interest in scientific publications (2020):
Taking appropriate measures to avoid bias and maintain transparency in the execution, reporting, and publication process improves scientific objectivity, integrity, and credibility of research findings.
....
Internationally, most scientific journals (over 90%) have adopted policies that mandate “disclosure of COI for authors"
[Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7819374/]
Failing to disclose COI's relegates research to the bottom 10% of scientific publications: shit-tier, quack-adjacent "science". (And yes, wokeness / Social Justice Fundamentalism has infected that bottom 10% of shit-tier publications, and yes, it's cancerously eating up more of the social sciences. As you've suggested, many circles in social science won't mind if you're publishing papers that surreptitiously promote your own agenda. What they're engaged in is no longer science.)
Outside of woke corruption, and for deeper context, modern science cares about bias, because it's been repeatedly burned by it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment
So, if you care about science, and you're not just play-acting at it, then I'm afraid that you have to care about bias.
Unrelatedly, I'm now downvoted to oblivion, and LessWrong has elected to time-limit my ability to make comments. I've been issued a dunce cap and put in the corner. This treatment is rather beneath my sense of my own dignity, so this is my last message here.
Foreign body removed: purification of the echo chamber complete.
For the purpose of reading my tone, I'm grateful that you added the disclosure. My priors have been adjusted, and you're alright in my book.
(I've been welcomed into the LessWrong community, after my high effort comment, with negative karma and the inability to even vote, but I'd otherwise give you an upvote.)
I think disclosures of conflicts of interest are important when you're authoritatively presenting conclusions, or when you're authoritatively rebutting scientific conclusions. We don't need to know our personal details when we're just talking to each other, and not standing on a metaphorical stage making proclamations. Nevertheless, to reciprocate, I'm not a HSTS. (For the audience, HSTS = homosexual transsexual, a transwoman who is attracted to men. For further context, sometimes HSTS's believe that AGP's aren't "true" transsexuals, hence tailcalled's guess.)
I'm a straight, cis-male, registered Democrat. In terms of bias, I think Blanchard is brilliant; he's poured much of his life into this stuff, and I don't like people glibly taking shots at his work. Regardless of what Twitter would have you believe, Blanchard is highly respected in the scientific community.
What study ... do you have in mind?
The following study, for which you are credited, has its conclusion in the title: "Autogenderphilia Is Common And Not Especially Related To Transgender" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/10/autogenderphilia-is-common-and-not-especially-related-to-transgender)
I am suggesting that there is a conflict of interest that hasn't been disclosed for this study. Scott Alexander apparently didn't work with you for the analysis/conclusion, so the bias may be strictly limited to the methods: the questions on the survey. (Unless, as I've read, Scott Alexander is romantically involved with a trans person, which makes the whole study highly suspect.)
I believe you in that you had little to do with it, other than coming up with the AGP questions. Nevertheless, in science, if you believe that a study is erroneous, it is standard to request that your name be removed from authorship, so as to not tar your career. The extent to which we stray from that standard is the extent to which our community loses credibility.
What ... socially undesirable traits do you have in mind?
Everyday sexualities, like homosexuality or fetishes like BDSM, are increasingly acceptable to society. Strange sexualities, however, make even progressives uncomfortable. Adult diaper people, for instance, struggle to find friends. But if your sexuality is normal, if most humans have a considerable degree of AGP, (as is concluded by the study that bears your name), then you can expect to be embraced in the kumbaya circle of circle. We all have AGP, let's hold hands!
On the other hand, if AGP is as Blanchard and Bailey understand it, then you're in for (greater) social difficulty. Blanchard and Bailey believe that AGP is analogous to apotemnophilics, also called "transabled" people. These folks are aroused by the idea of getting their limbs amputated. If Blanchard and Bailey are correct, both AGP's and apotemnophilics are consequences of an erotic target location error (ETLE).
Foot fetishists are another example of ETLE, and they're probably the most socially accepted ETLE. Many of us don't care if a friend has a foot thing, as long as he keeps it to himself and doesn't publicly ogle feet. Transabled people, meanwhile, are freaky to almost all of us. Having a sexual desire to chop off parts of your body would fit in a horror movie: an unacceptable sexuality to most.
I think AGP people would fall somewhere between foot fetishists and transabled people, were Blanchard AGP theory widely understood and accepted as valid.
Thus, what's on the table: whether your sexuality is normal or an oddity. And consequently, whether your sexuality is acceptable or highly uncomfortable. The latter would push you (deeper) into the social margins.
The specter of ostracization is a powerful source of bias — a lot is at stake for you! I believe that you have scientific integrity, but as I said in my previous comment, the odds are stacked against you on this topic. Your mind is going to try to find a way to believe the favorable thing and to reject the highly unfavorable thing. To compensate for that inevitable bias, the standards of your work in the field must be higher. It's a pragmatic consideration, not a judgmental one (as long as disclosures are provided!)
I cannot comment on flaws in your questions, as I'm not an expert in the field. I can tell you, though, that Bailey is a warm guy, and he's more accessible than you might expect. If Scott Alexander has slighted you, and it sounds like he has, you could probably steal his thunder. Beat him to a follow-up study done in conjunction with Bailey. I think Bailey might be happy for the chance to make a scientific convert.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry you got a shitty set of cards in the sexuality department. I hope you're able to find a satisfying way to get your kicks and be happy.
A scientist who sits on the board of a tobacco company, and who publishes a study that finds tobacco to be perfectly harmless, will have his or her study treated with extra skepticism, owing to their study's inevitable bias. If the scientist fails to disclose their conflict of interest, they'll be immediately ostracized from the scientific community. A failure to disclose a conflict of interest is an affront if not a direct attack on the credibility of science itself. It is unacceptable.
The author of this post, tailcalled, is self-admittedly autogynephilic. (See: https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/about/). Whatever pretenses of scientific merit his study and his findings may have, he failed to disclose his conflict of interest when presenting his results. He has demonstrated gross scientific negligence.
If police launch an internal investigation and find themselves blameless, we roll our eyes. If an autogynephilic man launches a study on autogynephlia, and he finds himself free of socially undesirable traits, we as rationalists... accept his favorable findings about himself without skepticism? God, I hope not.
tailcalled inventing his own questions smelled a little funny. It's a rudimentary element of epistemology to know that, despite your best efforts to remain impartial, you will always be interpreting the world around you with your thumb on the scale in your own favor. This is why we go to great lengths to create double-blind studies.
The fact that tailcalled, and to a lesser extent Scott Alexander (who publicized and brought significant attention to tailcalled results), failed to disclose tailcalled's conflict of interest is shameful. The truth, and the methods to arrive at the truth, must be held sacrosanct at lesswrong, or we're wasting our time.
Scott Alexander can do better, and tailcalled should apologize.
Additionally, all publications surrounding tailcalled results should be amended with a disclosure. If you're pissed that you had to scroll to the bottom of this post to find out that tailcalled is himself autogynephilic and on HRT, you should be.