My first, perhaps unflattering, thought is that males, on average, have a stronger internal sense of personal gender identity than females, who's sense of gender identity is more fluid and more socially informed.
More transwomen knew recognized that, before it was in the social mileue as an option.
I wonder if the reason why many people learn that it is more authentic and alive to trust their heart, rather than their own reason, is because their mind is pwned by parasitic memes that aren't aligned with their interests.
If you can't trust your own reasoning, because it's been coopted by a bunch of ideologies that are out to get you to various extents, and you're not smart enough (relative to those memes) to reason your way out of those errors, it probably DOES...
...work better to do "what feels right", even though the heart center has a lot less expressive capacity than the mind (the most complicated it is able to represent is much simpler).
#EconQuestion Why does anyone think that increasing aggregate demand stimulates the economy, on net?
True, if more people are spending, that's more revenue for businesses, and more dollars flowing through the economy.
But spending trades of directly with saving, which (if people are investing, or at least keeping their money in banks) flows through the economy as investment.
And a society saving more and spending less will have cheaper credit.
Overall, it seems better for the long run health and growth of a society for more resources to flow to investment than to consumption. Investment (generally) builds on itself more than consumption does.
Do we know how many standard deviations on the human IQ bell curve, the average chimpanzee is?
Or is that an ill-defined question because the cognitive profile of chimpanzees are so different from humans that using a standard psychometric battery on a chimp doesn't give a meaningful "IQ" number.
(I've heard that chimps have superhuman working memory, for instance, which suggests the psychometric sub-score pattern for a chimp will be extremely unusual compared to the human population.)
@ESYudkowsky, I think you've said that voting is the real life example of Logical Decision Theory in action.
(Quickly searching your facebook posts, I didn't find the citation, so maybe I'm mistaken and you never actually said that?)
My understanding of the argument: one person's vote has an insignificant causal impact on the outcome of an election. But it makes sense to vote anyway, because your decision to vote and decision of who to vote for, is an algorithm instantiated across many voters.
(Or your algorithm is one of reference class of algorithms that are sufficiently similar that they have correlated outputs, even if they don't have literally identical outputs.)