The Rationalist Stereotype Survey
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:
- Yes +1
- Kind of + ½
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