metagorgon:
speakertoyesterday:
socialjusticemunchkin:
conductivemithril:
socialjusticemunchkin:
conductivemithril:
argumate:
nuclearspaceheater:
sinesalvatorem:
NRx blog: The latest push for transgender activism is designed to inculcate trans acceptance in the most intellectually vulnerable among us and to undermine parental authority.
Me: Haha. Silly reactionaries, thinking that upbringing affects children’s long term behaviour.
It’s actually all a front, on both sides, to deflect the true blame away from Big Plastic, a partly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil.
I want to see the plastic-makes-your-kids-gay meme take off in my lifetime just because of how frickin’ hilarious it’s going to be to watch.
Yo promethea. @socialjusticemunchkin
Plastic makes your kids trans, not gay. Srsly guys we’ve discussed this exact shit already.
Dammit.
As a saving throw, there’s a lot of trans lesbians around here, so maaaaaybe plastics turn cishet guys into trans lesbians?
Of course the reactionaries would define a trans person’s orientation based on their asab, but I can think of at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other so they’d still consider that gay.
Seems legit, right?
“at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other”
Technically correct: the MVP of correct!
In reality I seem to be perceiving an excessive predisposition towards poly trans lesbians often dating numerous other poly trans lesbians, which is as close to peak degeneracy as it gets (and they usually tend to be kinky as well). And then they will also be at risk of seducing the reactionaries’ cis wives as well, just for the maximum cuckpoints.
So yes, glorious reactionary upsetness expectably ensuing. Better avoid plastics and chemicals.
…you know what has a lot of plastics and chemicals in them? Computers.
And the computer industry is hospitable to somewhat autistic people, who are at 7 times the risk of being transgender. This is not a coincidence because nothing is a coincidence.
computers are a well-established factor to turn nerd boys into nerd girls. i would know, i was there. maybe it was the ionizing radiation my grandmother warned me about crts…
poly transbian checking the fuck in. where them repressed nrx wives at?
they are not allowed on tumblr because @sinesalvatorem would turn them gay
(via metagorgon)
1 week ago · tagged #cucked in the cuck by my own cuck #nrx cw #shitposting #just one word: plastics · 124 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink
shieldfoss:
veronicastraszh:
ozymandias271:
Here is a survey about queers in STEM which I feel is probably relevant to the interests of half my followers
(Note: cishets also supposed to take the survey! be a control group! for science!)
Grrrrrr
Gave up halfway. Tons of questions where my answer is n/a, but they force you to answer to proceed.
Like, I guess no one enters a STEM job without any degree. So what do I put, since I don’t exist or something?
Evidently they’ve never imagined a software engineer who doesn’t write grants or publish research, but who instead writes software. Like seriously, what rock do they live under?
Do they even try these surveys on anyone who isn’t exactly like them?
Garbage in/garbage out.
If you know who these researchers are, trust nothing they conclude. They cannot design a survey for shit.
What annoys me is these jerks will probably publish their erase-people-like-veronica non-data. Which, as an actual fan of data, this offends me.
Yeah it was pretty terrible.
I picked the bottom slider, wrote “Industry work” in the text field and slid it alllllll the way to the right. Grants? What grants? I’m a productive member of society, my clients pay me to work. I have a sales department to ask them for money.
The “Biological gender” field was also something special. “Determined on the basis of child bearing capability, genitalia, chromosomes and/or hormones.”
OK, brilliant, what if I have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? Then I check (no, male)/(vulva, female)/(XY, male)/(estrogen, female) on that list.
Yes. I’m trying to slog through (”high school”, “actually doing the git gud thing: 100%”, “amab female”) and it’s very bad.
But I had a few laughs at “are you aware of anyone in your STEM field sharing your gender identity”. Sure, that’s one of the more legit questions but it was nonetheless somewhat funny. The people with the exact same gender I know are all in my field, and a bit more broadly interpreted I’m vaguely aware that trans women are not actually a majority in my field (the same way people in downtown SF are vaguely aware that black people exist).
(via shieldfoss)
1 week ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 123 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink
Anonymous asked: Is it possible or advisable to not have a dominant set of sex hormones - like, to have a hormone system that can't be described as "estrogen dominant" or "testosterone dominant"?
ozymandias271:
My understanding is that it is possible, but you run a risk of osteoporosis and other health problems in the long-term. That’s really something you want to talk to an endocrinologist about, not me– it’s p experimental.
Actually, as long as your overall amount of the hormones affecting those things is sufficient, there will be no specific health problems. Having no dominant type of hormone most commonly occurs in the absence of both, which is less healthy in the very long term, but it’s perfectly possible to have some amount of both instead (eg. afab with a reference model endocrine system taking a light amount of testosterone, or amab using partial doses of antiandrogens along with estrogen). Or one can supplement with SARMs and SERMS to target the specific locations to avoid problems while having low overall levels of regular testosterone and estrogen (eg. increasing bone density without having that many effects elsewhere by targeting the hormone receptors in bones).
Of course, this is all ~purely academic~, as I may not give medical advice and am thus not giving medical advice to anyone on the topic. And taking medical advice from strange convicted medical criminals on the internet is inadvisable anyway, and if one takes my words as medical advice it’s their own damn fault even though I definitely try to be v v responsible with my words so that in the case someone were to take them as medical advice nonetheless (even though it’s v v unadvisable to do so) they would not suffer from it too badly.
Nonetheless, I can very much describe the things someone wanting to do such things might do. So if you want to hear a quite detailed description of what someone (who is definitely just an abstract hypothetical person and definitely not you) might do if they wanted to have a hormone system without a dominant hormone, you should probably contact a promethea.
1 week ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 11 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink
conductivemithril:
socialjusticemunchkin:
conductivemithril:
argumate:
nuclearspaceheater:
sinesalvatorem:
NRx blog: The latest push for transgender activism is designed to inculcate trans acceptance in the most intellectually vulnerable among us and to undermine parental authority.
Me: Haha. Silly reactionaries, thinking that upbringing affects children’s long term behaviour.
It’s actually all a front, on both sides, to deflect the true blame away from Big Plastic, a partly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil.
I want to see the plastic-makes-your-kids-gay meme take off in my lifetime just because of how frickin’ hilarious it’s going to be to watch.
Yo promethea. @socialjusticemunchkin
Plastic makes your kids trans, not gay. Srsly guys we’ve discussed this exact shit already.
Dammit.
As a saving throw, there’s a lot of trans lesbians around here, so maaaaaybe plastics turn cishet guys into trans lesbians?
Of course the reactionaries would define a trans person’s orientation based on their asab, but I can think of at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other so they’d still consider that gay.
Seems legit, right?
“at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other”
Technically correct: the MVP of correct!
In reality I seem to be perceiving an excessive predisposition towards poly trans lesbians often dating numerous other poly trans lesbians, which is as close to peak degeneracy as it gets (and they usually tend to be kinky as well). And then they will also be at risk of seducing the reactionaries’ cis wives as well, just for the maximum cuckpoints.
So yes, glorious reactionary upsetness expectably ensuing. Better avoid plastics and chemicals.
…you know what has a lot of plastics and chemicals in them? Computers.
3 weeks ago · tagged #just one word: plastics #cucked in the cuck by my own cuck · 124 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink
That specific type of badbrains: a survey
unknought:
@socialjusticemunchkin recently wrote:
as I suspect, there might be a specific type of badbrains that
psychiatry hasn’t managed to pin down from symptoms but which has a
distinct-ish etiology because “trans woman with autism, adhd, depression
and/or anxiety” seems to be a very strong type
As someone who kind of fits the profile for all four illnesses but doesn’t fit any of them very neatly, and has kind of bounced around between diagnoses and ineffective treatments, this is a very appealing idea. And I know a fair number of people, many but definitely not all of them trans women, who have very similar symptoms to mine. If there were information available about this type (which seems to be very common among the rationalist diaspora), it could be very useful to the people who fall under it, but as far as I can tell there hasn’t been anything written about it.
So let’s crowdsource this! This kind of informal Tumblr survey won’t approach anything like real scientific data, but might give us a better picture of what it looks like and possibly even how it can be effectively managed. But again: Not real science! I don’t even know for sure that this is a real thing, and this survey is not going to prove that it is. This is more like a slightly scaled-up version of when you talk to a friend about common experiences with mental illness.
Who can participate: Anyone, really. Despite the quote, you absolutely do not have to be a trans woman to answer the survey. You also don’t need to be mentally ill. If you have have a significant number of traits associated with at least two of
autism, ADHD, depression
and anxiety, you might be an example of the thing I’m trying to understand. If you have a significant number of traits associated with just one, you’re probably not, but your data will still be useful as a point of comparison. If you don’t have a significant number of traits associated with any of the four, your answers probably won’t be especially useful to the main goals of the survey, but you’re still completely welcome to answer the questions.
All questions are optional. Many of the questions are very personal and if you answer everything in full the survey is potentially pretty long. I would much rather have a partial response than no response.
Submitting your answers: You can answer by reblogging or by filling out the Google survey here.
Thanks to @paradigm-adrift, @sigmaleph, @shkreli-for-president, and @mhd-hbd for feedback and suggestions!
0. Consent questions. (These are separate questions, so you can answer yes to some and no to others. Some of these scenarios won’t materialize; what I end up doing with the responses depends on how many I get and how people answer the consent questions.)
Are you okay with:
your response being used as part of the dataset?
your response being reblogged?
being quoted with attribution?
being quoted without attribution?
your response being included in a document of responses with attribution?
your response being included in a document of responses without attribution?
1. Select all that apply:
Autism
a. I’ve been professionally diagnosed.
b. I’ve self-diagnosed.
c. I’ve seriously considered whether I have it.
d. I definitely don’t have it.
ADHD
a. I’ve been professionally diagnosed.
b. I’ve self-diagnosed.
c. I’ve seriously considered whether I have it.
d. I definitely don’t have it.
Depression
a. I’ve been professionally diagnosed.
b. I’ve self-diagnosed.
c. I’ve seriously considered whether I have it.
d. I definitely don’t have it.
Anxiety
a. I’ve been professionally diagnosed.
b. I’ve self-diagnosed.
c. I’ve seriously considered whether I have it.
d. I definitely don’t have it.
2. Do you have any mental illnesses not included in that list? Which ones? (Self-diagnosed illnesses count for this question.)
3. What symptoms do you have that are associated with
autism, ADHD, depression or anxiety? What symptoms associated with them don’t you have? (The DSM diagnostic criteria for all four are included under the cut, for reference. One way to answer this question is just to use the diagnostic criteria as a checklist, and indicate what you do and don’t have. But a few sentences explaining the ways in which the labels do and don’t fit would also be fine.)
4. What treatments (medication, therapy, etc.) have been effective for you in managing symptoms you didn’t want? How did they help? What treatments didn’t work?
5. Were there any lifestyle changes that you found useful?
6. Gender and assigned sex at birth. (If you feel the need to answer dishonestly to avoid outing yourself, that’s fine. Also remember that all questions are optional.)
7. Career / field of study.
8. Major personal interests. (Think like OkCupid’s “I spend a lot of time thinking about” except with less pressure to look like a normal person.)
9. Religious upbringing and current religious beliefs
10. Any other weird things about your brain that you feel like sharing. (For example, atypical patterns of romantic/sexual attraction, kinks, being otherkin, being multiple. But this is intentionally open-ended.)
(this is the end of the survey; below the cut are diagnostic criteria)
Keep reading
Sent a response on the form. Also, if you see this, I’d recommend you to note your sexual orientation in the answers because there’s reason to suspect that this thing is strongly associated with gynephilia (straight men/lesbians) and rare if not nonexistent with exclusive androphiles (gay men/straight women)
3 weeks ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 42 notes · source: unknought · .permalink
The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
@spiderpriestess
Nine and five-sixths.
I don’t think Yudkowsky himself would score that high.
::::|
Okay but let’s be real, this is all just “autism subtype markers”, right?
right????????
Now that you mention it, a lot of this is autism (autistic people are something like five to ten times more likely to be trans, for example), but I still think there’s something else going on, with the 50% depression rate etc. (as I suspect, there might be a specific type of badbrains that psychiatry hasn’t managed to pin down from symptoms but which has a distinct-ish etiology because “trans woman with autism, adhd, depression and/or anxiety” seems to be a very strong type)
Yudkowsky himself would be like 8-9 in my guess (in comparison, the “marxist” stereotype is quite different from what Karl Marx was), but the “yudbot” (affectionately intended) personality has something that makes it very attracted to this community/memeplex that I’d really like to tease out of the data once I start actually crunching the numbers instead of just eyeballing graphs. And it seems to be correlated with really interesting things, especially regarding gender and sexuality.
And I also need to find a control group somewhere, obviously.
(via blushingabyss)
1 month ago · tagged #just one word: plastics #yudbot and not ashamed of it · 181 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink
The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
rusalkii:
rusalkii:
socialjusticemunchkin:
Now with a scoring guide (choose one or none from each sub-category)
Age:
- 21-25 years +1
- 16-20 +½
- 26-30 years +½
Jewishness:
Gender:
- trans woman (regardless of hormone usage) +1
- any kind of amab using estrogen +1
- amab non-binary (no estrogen) +¾
- other non-cis or dubiously cis (afab trans, agender, magic button trans, etc.) +½
- cis by default (not magic button trans) +¼
Poly:
- Yes +1
- Kind of, or open to the idea +½
Sexuality, part A:
- gray-asexual or demisexual +1
- asexual +½
- asexual and kinky +1
- kinky +½
Sexuality, part B (replace “sexual” with “romantic” if doing so would give you a higher score):
- bisexual, pansexual, sapiosexual, any other kind of “gender isn’t really such a big deal"sexual +1
- any kind of “gender isn’t a massive deal but it’s somewhat of a deal"sexual +½
- gendersexual, but would take the bisexuality pill +½
Gifted child:
- very +½ (eg. peerless in one’s childhood environment, or not peerless, but with a highly unusual peer group)
- quite +¼ (eg. one of the highest-achieving in one’s slightly less highly unusual peer group)
Badbrains:
- at least 2 of: ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression at least to a sub-clinical but noticeable degree +½
- one of them +¼
Field:
- CS student, or working in programming, AI, CS, etc. +1
- self-learning any of the above +½
- student or working in mathematics +½
Politics, part 1:
- supports open borders, or at least massively increased immigration +½
- supports significantly increased immigration +¼
Politics, part 2:
- supports basic income by whatever name one wishes to use +½
- supports some other kind of less bureaucratic, more market-based approach to welfare +¼
Politics, extra questions (can’t increase the total politics score over 1):
- refuses to identify with ideological labels +½
- identifies with a weird made-up “non-“ideological label +½ ("futarchy”, “meta-level politics”, etc.)
Geeking out:
- transhumanist nerd stuff +1
- any other uncommon and specific nerd stuff +1
- less unusual SF/F or STEM nerd stuff +½
HPMoR, 3 Worlds Collide, Dragon-Tyrant (add scores from each):
- has read all of it, or most and intends to finish +1/3
- has read a lot but doesn’t intend to finish, or is starting +1/6
SSC:
- regularly +1
- sometimes +½
- rarely +¼
I tried to not break legacy results compatibility so most people’s scores should be the same and this would just clarify the questionnaire; if people’s results change, it’s because I’ve changed some things to better reflect the original intent based on data acquired so far (looking especially at you, @sigmaleph, because that “politics” answer was the most stereotypical rationalist thing ever and I’m embarrassed to have overlooked that possibility)
Since everyone is doing it: .5 for age, depending on how you count Jewishness either .5 or 1, not cis-by-default woman, 1 point for poly, 1 point for gray-ace, sexuality is confusing but I’m going with 1 point here, I don’t think I am/was "unusually gifted” but people have told me otherwise so either .25 or .5, depending on how you count my (definitely subclinical) anxiety either .25 or .5 for badbrains, not a computer or math person, .25 for immigration (not a very carefully thought through stance, could go either way) and .5 for UBI, I’m not sure if my nerd stuff is particularly uncommon but let’s go with 1, .66 for HPMoR and the Dragon-Tyrant, 1 point for SSC.
Counting lowest scores 7 11/12, highest scores 8 11/12, I’m going to average that to 8.
According to @socialjusticemunchkin that makes me a Typical Rationalist. Which, uh, no. I’m a 16-year-old girl who’s not particularly STEM and hangs around here because the people are interesting, I’m basically the opposite of what I’d think if I was trying to imagine A Rationalist.
(As a side note: using @invertedporcupine’s measures of "agrees with EY”, I get either 2/4 or ½, depending on how you count. Many Worlds sounds superficially plausible and FOOM implausible, but I lack the background to understand either on any deep enough level to have a strong opinion. (Apparently we get meta-rationality points for admitting we don’t know enough? I’m claiming those, then.) I think dust specks are better than torture and cryonics sounds like shot on the dark, but one that might be worth it.)
On the other hand, to me "a gifted Jewishness-scoring badbrains unusualsexual teenager with correct-contrarian-leaning political opinions (as far as positive questions are concerned, basic income is one of those ideas that I consider pretty extremely likely to result from a relatively wide variety of normative views fully thought out), who reads the media and finds the people interesting” sounds very much like A Possible Rationalist.
As far as my amateur stetson-harrison psychometry suggests the STEM thing is slightly misleading; what makes A Rationalist is partially the things that make them different from the typical STEM person, and if I was forced to guess without proper data, I’d suggest it’s a certain badbrainsness and a more introspective and philosophical approach in some ways.
1 month ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 181 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink
The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
invertedporcupine:
socialjusticemunchkin:
socialjusticemunchkin:
Now with a scoring guide (choose one or none from each sub-category)
Age:
- 21-25 years +1
- 16-20 +½
- 26-30 years +½
Jewishness:
Gender:
- trans woman (regardless of hormone usage) +1
- any kind of amab using estrogen +1
- amab non-binary (no estrogen) +¾
- other non-cis or dubiously cis (afab trans, agender, magic button trans, etc.) +½
- cis by default (not magic button trans) +¼
Poly:
- Yes +1
- Kind of, or open to the idea +½
Sexuality, part A:
- gray-asexual or demisexual +1
- asexual +½
- asexual and kinky +1
- kinky +½
Sexuality, part B (replace “sexual” with “romantic” if doing so would give you a higher score):
- bisexual, pansexual, sapiosexual, any other kind of “gender isn’t really such a big deal"sexual +1
- any kind of “gender isn’t a massive deal but it’s somewhat of a deal"sexual +½
- gendersexual, but would take the bisexuality pill +½
Gifted child:
- very +½ (eg. peerless in one’s childhood environment, or not peerless, but with a highly unusual peer group)
- quite +¼ (eg. one of the highest-achieving in one’s slightly less highly unusual peer group)
Badbrains:
- at least 2 of: ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression at least to a sub-clinical but noticeable degree +½
- one of them +¼
Field:
- CS student, or working in programming, AI, CS, etc. +1
- self-learning any of the above +½
- student or working in mathematics +½
Politics, part 1:
- supports open borders, or at least massively increased immigration +½
- supports significantly increased immigration +¼
Politics, part 2:
- supports basic income by whatever name one wishes to use +½
- supports some other kind of less bureaucratic, more market-based approach to welfare +¼
Politics, extra questions (can’t increase the total politics score over 1):
- refuses to identify with ideological labels +½
- identifies with a weird made-up “non-“ideological label +½ (“futarchy”, “meta-level politics”, etc.)
Geeking out:
- transhumanist nerd stuff +1
- any other uncommon and specific nerd stuff +1
- less unusual SF/F or STEM nerd stuff +½
HPMoR, 3 Worlds Collide, Dragon-Tyrant (add scores from each):
- has read all of it, or most and intends to finish +1/3
- has read a lot but doesn’t intend to finish, or is starting +1/6
SSC:
- regularly +1
- sometimes +½
- rarely +¼
I tried to not break legacy results compatibility so most people’s scores should be the same and this would just clarify the questionnaire; if people’s results change, it’s because I’ve changed some things to better reflect the original intent based on data acquired so far (looking especially at you, @sigmaleph, because that “politics” answer was the most stereotypical rationalist thing ever and I’m embarrassed to have overlooked that possibility)
And now I have the result categories as well:
(break ties with Newcomb’s dilemma; one-boxers upwards, two-boxers downwards)
12: The Chosen One
10-12: True Yudbot of the Hivemind
8-10: Stereotypical Rationalist
6-8: Typical Rationalist
4-6: Quite rationalist-adjacent
2-4: Kind of adjacent I guess
0-2: I don’t know how you ended up taking the survey, please tell me your story
There should be a follow-up to plot the strength of correlation (or lack thereof) between number of points on this scale and number of things one agrees with EY about out of (Cryonics is a good personal investment, recursive self-improving AI FOOM is likely, torture better than dust specks, Many Worlds is *obviously* the best available hypothesis)
I’m 5.5/12 but 0/4.
10/12
Cryonics yes
FOOM yes
My ethical theory can answer the "youtube vs. sublimeness” dilemma but I haven’t ran the numbers; there exists a firm upper boundary on how much utility a slighty amusing video can generate regardless of how many see it, but there exists an amount of sublimity that is significant yet less utility than a youtube video seen by limit-reaching number of people, so I guess I fall on the “youtube” side with some reasonable parameters
I defer to experts on QM at least for now, and even skipped that part of the Sequences because I didn’t want to get eulered; so I don’t know if this counts as “exceeding the master in the master’s art” because I can quote several of the 12 Virtues supporting this view
So that’s basically 3/3 with some caveats, and meta-rationality points on QM because I know my limits
1 month ago · tagged #people please answer this this is important and interesting #just one word: plastics · 181 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink
The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
socialjusticemunchkin:
@conductivemithril:
The person who gets 12 is the Chosen One.
Rebageling this to place credit where credit is due.
Oh shit, I just realized that if I get productively employed (or self-employed, or entrepreneuring), expand my sexual comfort zones in a way that isn’t even without historical precedent, and convert, before late 2017 I could have a full 12/12
Now the question is: would anyone bid for that? Because there totally exists a sum of money I’d do it for.
(via socialjusticemunchkin)
1 month ago · tagged #just one word: plastics #and there i was being like #'i'm relieved people are getting higher scores than me' #lolnope · 181 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink
The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
socialjusticemunchkin:
Now with a scoring guide (choose one or none from each sub-category)
Age:
- 21-25 years +1
- 16-20 +½
- 26-30 years +½
Jewishness:
Gender:
- trans woman (regardless of hormone usage) +1
- any kind of amab using estrogen +1
- amab non-binary (no estrogen) +¾
- other non-cis or dubiously cis (afab trans, agender, magic button trans, etc.) +½
- cis by default (not magic button trans) +¼
Poly:
- Yes +1
- Kind of, or open to the idea +½
Sexuality, part A:
- gray-asexual or demisexual +1
- asexual +½
- asexual and kinky +1
- kinky +½
Sexuality, part B (replace “sexual” with “romantic” if doing so would give you a higher score):
- bisexual, pansexual, sapiosexual, any other kind of “gender isn’t really such a big deal"sexual +1
- any kind of “gender isn’t a massive deal but it’s somewhat of a deal"sexual +½
- gendersexual, but would take the bisexuality pill +½
Gifted child:
- very +½ (eg. peerless in one’s childhood environment, or not peerless, but with a highly unusual peer group)
- quite +¼ (eg. one of the highest-achieving in one’s slightly less highly unusual peer group)
Badbrains:
- at least 2 of: ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression at least to a sub-clinical but noticeable degree +½
- one of them +¼
Field:
- CS student, or working in programming, AI, CS, etc. +1
- self-learning any of the above +½
- student or working in mathematics +½
Politics, part 1:
- supports open borders, or at least massively increased immigration +½
- supports significantly increased immigration +¼
Politics, part 2:
- supports basic income by whatever name one wishes to use +½
- supports some other kind of less bureaucratic, more market-based approach to welfare +¼
Politics, extra questions (can’t increase the total politics score over 1):
- refuses to identify with ideological labels +½
- identifies with a weird made-up "non-"ideological label +½ ("futarchy”, “meta-level politics”, etc.)
Geeking out:
- transhumanist nerd stuff +1
- any other uncommon and specific nerd stuff +1
- less unusual SF/F or STEM nerd stuff +½
HPMoR, 3 Worlds Collide, Dragon-Tyrant (add scores from each):
- has read all of it, or most and intends to finish +1/3
- has read a lot but doesn’t intend to finish, or is starting +1/6
SSC:
- regularly +1
- sometimes +½
- rarely +¼
I tried to not break legacy results compatibility so most people’s scores should be the same and this would just clarify the questionnaire; if people’s results change, it’s because I’ve changed some things to better reflect the original intent based on data acquired so far (looking especially at you, @sigmaleph, because that “politics” answer was the most stereotypical rationalist thing ever and I’m embarrassed to have overlooked that possibility)
And now I have the result categories as well:
(break ties with Newcomb’s dilemma; one-boxers upwards, two-boxers downwards)
12: The Chosen One
10-12: True Yudbot of the Hivemind
8-10: Stereotypical Rationalist
6-8: Typical Rationalist
4-6: Quite rationalist-adjacent
2-4: Kind of adjacent I guess
0-2: I don’t know how you ended up taking the survey, please tell me your story
1 month ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 181 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink