I don't think that's quite a terminal value.

(I have that as somewhat of a terminal value, as far as I can tell.)

I don't think that's quite a terminal value.

Then you and I do not share terminal values. I value being "right" because it is "right". I disvalue being "wrong" because it is wrong. These are practically tautological. :)

I say this is vague and sounds true but not important.

Well... there is significance in judging the ability of an arbitrary individual from a given culture to achieve excellence in either quality by examining the availability of the other, especially when attempting to compare the 'greatness' of their achievements. But that has less to do with the hardness of the limits and more to do with the strength of correlation. (With the caveat that the correlations are only statistical; individuals can and do violate those correlations quite frequently -- a testament to how skilled human beings are at being inherently contradictory.)

The body of knowledge that today comprises cognitive science and behavioral economics is something our predecessors of a century ago did not have. I should expect, as a result of this -- should the information be widely disseminated (with fidelity) over time, to see something equivalent to the Flynn Effect in terms of what Eliezer calls the "sanity waterline". (With people like Cialdini and Ariely newly entering into the arena of the 'grand marketplace of ideas', we might see a superior result to that goal than the folks at Snopes have achieved with their individual/piecemeal approach.)

Your first paragraph here seems completely unnecessary.

I disagree. Strongly. LW-ers in general need to recall that a linguistically phrased statement is not "more wrong" by nature than a mathematically phrased one -- especially when the topic itself does not lend itself to such a thing. (Though not a direct correlation this maps well to the notions of Fake Utility Functions.)

Made up numbers are worse than 'vague' -- they are counter-productive: they "prime" the reader (and the writer) towards specific subsets of the available space.

If you just used the wrong word before, that seems understandable,

It wasn't the wrong word at all. It was exactly the right word. All I did was flush it out further. That would be why I re-used the same exact term: "you will be unable to fully mature to the limits of what humans can achieve in terms of cultivated rationality.".

but you shouldn't get snippy when people can't read your mind.

... Is it really so hard to not follow such a simple request? "Please spare us references to inferential gaps"

This wasn't a question of mind reading but rather of not being profoundly ignorant as to the topic upon which truth/false judgments were being exercised. I explained this in depth and expressed my disappointment with this current state of affairs.

The paragraph beginning "Sounds false" seems so ungrammatical

... It's called the conversational tone. You use it, in writing, when you are holding a conversation.

that I can't tell what it means other than 'Science good.'

I have no reaction to this other than contempt. If I had meant to say "science good" I would have said it. I was quoting the guy I was responding to. Just why, pray tell, is this such a difficult concept to grasp? (I will point out that my emotional reactions here indicate to me that you had no serious intention of conveying anything with this statement other than to take a petty swing at someone whose tone you disliked because it was mean, and "mean is bad". This site would do a great deal better if people would grow out of White Knighting.)