For interest of the discussion, here is the article in question

It actually is a perfect example of how LW is interested in science:

There is the fact that some people have no mental imagery, but live totally normal lives. That's amazing! They're more different than you usually imagine scifi aliens to be! And yet there is no obvious difference. It is awesome. How does that even work? Do they have mental imagery somewhere inside but no reflection on it? Etc, etc etc.

And the first thing that was done with this awesome fact here, was 'update' in the direction of trusting more the PUA community's opinion on women, rather than women themselves, and that was done by author. That's not even a sufficiently complete update, because the PUA community - especially the manipulative misogynists with zero morals and the ideal to become a clinical sociopath as per check list, along with their bragging that has selection bias and unscientific approach to data collection written all over it - is itself prone to typical mind fallacy (as well as a bunch of other fallacies) when they are seeing women as equally morally reprehensible beings as they themselves are.

This, cousin_it, is the case example why you shouldn't be writing good work for LW. Some time back you were on verge of something cool - perhaps even proving that defining the real world 'utility' is incredibly computationally expensive for UDT. Instead, well, yeah, there's the local 'consensus' on the AI behaviour and you explore for the potential confirmations of it.