Just because people might choose to misinterpret the results of a test doesn't mean the test is invalid. People already do an acceptable job understanding the existence of false positives and negatives on other tests.

If people thought about what they were doing at all times, both claims could be true but in the real world, both of those claims will almost surely be rejected. People don't choose to be certain, they are just unaware of their overconfidence.

Overconfidence doesn't change the probabilities of the rare, harmful events that they are predicting won't happen. But their bias against self-doubt does increase their willingness to bet against unprecedented events.. n=1001 safe observations (where E[payoff] > 0) cannot predict that the next will be catastrophic (E[payoff] = -inf, or at least absolute value >> O(N*E[payoff seen up till then])) with non-zero probability beforehand; the expected payoff would appear vastly different before the event than after. The bets they choose will reflect the way they underestimate the consequences of speculation.

Evidence of absence > absence of evidence, another way to put that is the weight of ¬valid(test) >> the weight of ¬¬valid(test), so we should not decide the test is invalid just because it's not yet invalidated.

My gut feeling is that the upper-bound of proven benefit (to individuals/society) of the test (even if ~99.99% accurate) << upper-bound of the harm (intentionally or not) - because 'invalidity' isn't a question of whether a test is always non-satisfiable, the burden of proof falls upon the one introducing it, rather than the one rejecting it.

You don't know many teenagers, do you?

The potential for ostracism is just too great.

> The whole point of the LGBTQ movement was to let people decide for themselves what they are, not to label them based off what society says they ought to be.

So why can't they use that experience to make the same point against a AI bot labeler. Too much of a leap?

No? The exact same reasoning works regardless of what kind of oracle the labeler is; it's not at all affected by increases in labeler accuracy over ordinary human accuracy.

Probably not a helpful tangent of the debate.

This will become more and more of an issue if we allow anyone to identify at any time as anything.

There was an article recently about males which identify as females wanting in on female-only music festivals (which were a response to frequent sexual assaults at mixed festivals)

I understand, but it's a complicated debate and it's full of strong opinions and subjectivity. Definitely not one we can solve with a one liner about gym showers, and I think a tangent based on that is unlikely to be anything but antagonistic.

Ok, assessments from 2 independent psychiatrists and a history of passing please. Then no problem.

I was going to mock this post because I think the lgbbq movement was a cultural Marxist conspiracy against the institution of the family unit, but your points are absolutely beautiful hypotheticals that everyone can get behind.

Individuals absolutely have to be free to determine who they are, and that means that society can only judge their determinations, not they themselves.

I will set aside my quibbles with the rest of of the package for another day, and simply extend you kudos for a well thought-out post.

> I think the lgbbq movement was a cultural Marxist conspiracy against the institution of the family unit

Have you ever considered that, oh I don't know, maybe it's just that people would like to live their lives in peace, the way they want, fucking whomever they want without bothering anyone else or being bothered in return? What on earth possesses you to attribute this to some sinister decades long underground plot?

>I think the lgbbq movement was a cultural Marxist conspiracy against the institution of the family unit

If this isn't sarcasm/irony, what's your evidence for this conspiracy?

(Edit: Why is this comment downvoted? Is it frowned upon to ask for evidence for a conspiracy theory?)

Strong priors and a good listen to Yuri Bezmenov.

Fully understand that priors != evidence. Which is why I'll state it's my belief, not ground truth.

What exactly are the priors for the idea that there is a group of people you call "cultural Marxists", who have done this, and further that they have done it?

The standard version of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory states that the Frankfurt School, a group of European intellectuals, hatched a plot to bring down Western civilisation. If you believe this is the case, I have two questions:

- What works of the Frankfurt School have you read, and which do you think are congruent with what you are accusing them of?

- Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?

If you think this is not the case, then tell me who exactly "cultural Marxists" are, their origins, and what basis you have for your accusations. These are very basic questions which you should not have to reference another book to answer, though you can of course provide a reference to one as part of your answer.

Let's have a struggle session and find out?

One more reply before I head off for the night:

>Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?

>Oh, you don't toe the PC line? You must be a rayciswhitemale.

You're self-parodic at this point.

>Oh, you don't toe the PC line? You must be a rayciswhitemale.

Apparently not being an anti-semite is being "PC"?