Originally made this account to message some people privately.

Can you explain why the first thing to update after the Galton's amazing study into imagination, was your opinion on women in general as determined by PUA's opinion on women vs women opinion on women (the balance of conflicting opinions)? Also, btw, it is in itself a great example of biased cognition: you run across some fact, and you update selectively; the fact should lower your weight for anyone's evaluation of anyone, but instead it just lowers the weight for women's evaluation of women.

Also, while I am sure that you did not consciously add it just for LW audience, if you were writing for a more general audience it does seem reasonable to assume - given that you are generally a good writer - that you would not include this sort of 'example' of application of the findings of Galton.

Yes, I have a blog. I write blog posts much more often than I write Less Wrong posts (although they're much lower quality and scatterbrained in all senses of the word).

Write higher quality, or make 2 sections, 1 good, 1 random. Write for general audience, i.e. no awful LW jargon and LW terminology misuse ('rational' actually means something, and so does 'bayesian'). Cross post here. Come on, you said before, in calibrate your self assessments , that you have relatively low opinion on yourself.

Sometimes I want to say something about rationality, and since I happen to know of this site that's totally all about rationality with a readership hundreds of times greater than my blog,

it's Eliezer's former blog, hurr, durr, it's people who didn't cringe too hard on stuff like http://lesswrong.com/lw/qa/the_dilemma_science_or_bayes/ . He got those readers how? He split off from Hansen. I do have high opinion of you overall. Much higher than I have of EY.

The judgements are very often instrumentally useful. Also, I do happen to see this subset of the users on internet every bit as negatively as I said, and so do many other people who usually don't tell anything about it, and in so much as I do not think that seeing it more positively would be instrumentally useful, it'd not be quite honest to just see it this way and never say.

edit: also, a backgrounder. I am a game developer. We see various misogynistic crap every damn day (if looking into any online communication system). Also, as on the PUA, they see people (women) as objects, seek sexual promiscuity and shallow relationships, are deliberately manipulative, etc, etc. scoring more than enough points on a sociopathy traits list for a diagnosis (really only not scoring the positive points like charisma). What they think about women being taken as likely true is clearly a very poor example of evidence for a post about typical mind fallacy.