1). There is a lot of, for want of a better term, "mental masturbation" around here: arguing for the sake of arguing, debating insignificant points, flashy but ultimately useless displays of intellect etc. Men tend to enjoy this sort of thing much more than women. Perhaps the female equivalent would be "social masturbation" -- endless gossiping about other people's trivia.

2). There's a major bias toward discussing math and science topics on here, and objective rather than subjective experience. Rationality, as a meta-construct, arguably isn't necessarily limited to these domains. I don't see why it can't be applied to equally good effect to literature and the humanities, art, interpersonal relationships, etc. Broaden your conversations to include some more of these topics (but, of course, with the same characteristic rational approach) and you may win over more female participants.

"Declare your hidden agendas" is somewhat of an oxymoron -- obviously anyone with a true hidden agenda isn't going to declare it. Seems like this idea of disclaimers in front of LW posts is a non-starter.

I want to define the terms in the standard way; as it is commonly viewed in this group. I'm new on LW and those definitions were just my best guesses.

Be careful about how you define those terms, as they may be idiosyncratic. "Rationalism" and "Empiricism" have long philosophical histories, and are typically seen as parallel, not-quite-rival schools of thought, with the rationalists striving to root all knowledge in a priori rational inquiry (Descartes' Meditations is the paradigm example). I'm not sure it's wise to flip that on its head by redefining such a common, well-denoted term.

This is the Dark Side root link. In my opinion it's a useful chunked concept, though maybe people should be hyperlinking here when they use the term, to be more accessible to people who haven't read every post. At the very least, the FAQ builders should add this, if it's not there already.

I don't think it is enough to split the "dark arts" along the true/false axis. We also need to split along internal/external.

Consider the case that we have tried very hard to avoid being taken in by false arguments and have at long last reached a true and useful conclusion. Now what? We still have to remember our conclusion and refresh it so that it doesn't slowly fade from view. Harder still, if we want our life to change, we need to find emotional equivalents for our intellectual understanding.

So I think that there are good internal uses for the "dark arts". Once you have made your rational decision find a slogan that sticks in the memory and find motivational techniques with personal resonnance, even if they are not entirely honest. Of course, if one has made a mistake with ones initial assessment one is now digging oneself a very deep hole, they aren't called dark arts for nothing.

People are irrational largely because they're stupid. I have yet to be convinced that "rationality" is something entirely distinct from intelligence itself, such that you can appeal to someone to become significantly more "rational" without simultaneously effecting the seemingly tougher feat of boosting IQ a standard deviation or so.

If Eliezer eats fewer calories than he expends, he's not going to die of hunger.

But he may spend large amounts of time in a state where physiological and psychological responses are screaming "eat more food!". This state is not conducive to a happy, productive life.

Of course not, but you've contrived an odd corner-case that, in fact, doesn't exist in reality. I'm not sure what that goes to show.

Except that my counterfactual organism seems to more strongly resemble Eliezer Yudkowsky than does whatever model you're working from.

I can starve or think, not both at the same time.