I think that if you really look at the makeup question you will find that's not cost effective.
A quick googling gives me the number that woman spent on average 91 hours per year applying makeup ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2175077/Women-spend-43-weeks-life-applying-make-perfecting-face-night-out.html ).
I think that a woman who rather spends the same amount of time in daily meditation sessions will get a higher return on her time investment.
In a world full of superficial people there's not much comparative advantage at trying to be better at being more superficial than everyone else. I think it's a better strategy to compete based on personal depth.
If you are open about who you are, that will make you more confident than if you walk around all the time with a mask.
I think that a woman who rather spends the same amount of time in daily meditation sessions will get a higher return on her time investment.
I'm not so sure. Women who don't wear makeup are much less attractive, which significantly reduces their social status and their dating market value. These are things people greatly value.
If you are open about who you are, that will make you more confident than if you walk around all the time with a mask.
I think confidence depends mostly on practice and genetics and situational factors. If anything, I think the ...
Scott, known on LessWrong as Yvain, recently wrote a post complaining about an inaccurate rape statistic.
Arthur Chu, who is notable for winning money on Jeopardy recently, argued against Scott's stance that we should be honest in arguments in a comment thread on Jeff Kaufman's Facebook profile, which can be read here.
Scott just responded here, with a number of points relevant to the topic of rationalist communities.
I am interested in what LW thinks of this.
Obviously, at some point being polite in our arguments is silly. I'd be interested in people's opinions of how dire the real world consequences have to be before it's worthwhile debating dishonestly.