Here are some relevant references from the book:

When investigators actually go and look, rather than just declare that we are products of childhood, the lack of strong continuity from childhood to adulthood is what hits you between the eyes. This is a major discovery of life-span developmental psychology. “Change” is at least as good a description as “continuity” for what happens to us as we mature. For good reviews of this very large literature, see M. Rutter, “Continuities and Discontinuities from Infancy,” in J. Osofsky, ed., Handbook of Infant Development, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1987), 1256–98; H. Moss and E. Sussman, “Longitudinal Study of Personality Development,” in O. Brim and J. Kagan, eds., Constancy and Change in Human Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 530–95; G. Parker, E. Barrett, and I. Hickie, “From Nurture to Network: Examining Links Between Perceptions of Parenting Received in Childhood and Social Bonds in Adulthood,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 877–85; and R. Plomin, H. Chipuer, and J. Loehlin, “Behavior Genetics and Personality,” in L. Pervin, ed., Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (New York: Guilford, 1990), 225–43.

or

Especially instructive is the finding that divorce itself is heritable. If you have an identical twin who divorces, your chances of divorce increase sixfold, whereas a divorced fraternal twin only increases your chances of divorce twofold. See M. McGue and D. Lykken, “Genetic Influence on the Risk of Divorce,” Psychological Science 3 (1992): 368–73.

or

See D. Finkelhor, “Early and Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse,” for a recent review. Three longitudinal studies are R. Gomes-Schwartz, J. Horowitz, and A. Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse: The Initial Effects (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990); A. Bentovim, P. Boston, and A. Van Elburg, “Child Sexual Abuse—Children and Families Referred to a Treatment Project and the Effects of Intervention,”. British Medical Journal 295 (1987): 1453–57; J. Conte, “The Effects of Sexual Abuse on Children: Results of a Research Project,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 528 (1988): 310–26. For the better prognosis in children than in adults, see R. Hanson, “The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault on Women and Children: A Review,” Annals of Sex Research 3 (1990): 187–232. For ripping off the scars and even manufacturing them out of whole cloth, see D. Kent, “Remembering ‘Repressed’ Abuse,” APS Observer 5 (1992): 6–7. For the effect of lengthy litigation, see D. Runyan, M. Everson, D. Edelsohn, et al., “Impact of Legal Intervention on Sexually Abused Children,” Journal of Pediatrics 113 (1988): 647–53.

Well, the numbers you give are frankly unbelievable and I don't believe them.

The fact the the sources appear to conflate spanking and child abuse is not encouraging in regard to their trustworthiness.

I guess I'll be the first one to offer a steel man interpretation of pwno's post:

Assuming you're anti-Trump... If voting for Trump could be done with no logistical inconveniences, and somehow legally pay you a reward of say 10 cents, and you didn't believe this offer was being made to anyone else, then a good rationality test is whether you would take that offer.

Yet given that we are not always fully rational and strategic in our social engagements, it is easy to slip up within debate mode and orient toward winning instead of uncovering the truth.

To be fully rational is to orient toward winning.

Me, I'm not fully rational. I'm a moron. I typically do what you suggest instead - orienting toward truth (epistemic truth). It's taken me decades to realize the foolishness of that, but it is still my natural inclination.

-- Recovering Truthaholic

reflexively inverting any advice you are given to see if it still sounds wise as a test for falsifiability is something I think Charlie Munger mentions doing.

In its natural form QI is bad, but if we add cryonics, they will help each other.

If you go under the bus you now have three outcomes: you die, you are cryopreserved and lately resurrected and you are badly injured for eternity. QI prevent first one.

So you will be or cryopreserved or badly injured and survive for eternity. While both things have very small probability, cryopreservation may overweight longterm injury. And it certainly overweight a chance that you will live until 120 years old.

So if you do not want to suffer for eternity , you need to sign up for cryonics ))))

If we go deeper, we maybe surprised to find our selves in the world that prevent us from very improbable life of no dying old man, because we live in a very short time of human history where cryonics is known.

It may be explained (speculatively) that if you are randomly chosen from all possible immortals, you will find yourself in the class with highest measure.

It means that that you should expect no degradation, but ascending, may be by merging with Strong AI. It may sound wild, but I was surprised that I was not only one who came to the same conclusion, as when I was in MIRI last fall one guy had the same ideas (I forget his name).

In short it may be explained in following way: from all humans who will be immortal the biggest part will be the ones who merge with AI and the smallest one will be those who survive as very old man thanks to random fluctuation.

The problem with Quantum Immortality is that it is a pretty horrible scenario. That's not an argument against it being true of course, but it's an argument for hoping it's not true.

Let's assume QI is true. If I walk under a bus tomorrow, I won't experience universes where I die, so I'll only experience miraculously surviving the accident. That sounds good.

But here's where the nightmare starts. Dying is not a binary process. There'll be many more universes where I survive with serious injuries then universes where I survive without injury. Eventually I'll grow old. There'll be some universes where by random quantum fluctuations that miraculously never happens, but in the overwhelming majority of them I'll grow old and weak. And then I won't die. In fact I wouldn't even be able to die if I wanted to. I could decide to commit suicide, but I'll only ever experience those universes where for some reason I chose not to go through with it (or something prevented me from going through with it).

It's the ultimate horror scenario. Forced immortality, but without youth or health.

If QI is true having kids would be the ultimate crime. If QI is true the only ethical course of action would be to pour all humanity's resources into developing an ASI and program it to sterilize the universe. That won't end the nightmare, there'll always be universes where we fail to build such an ASI, but at least it will reduce the measure of suffering.

All of the above. Really, think about the issue for 30 seconds.

I've gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting.

Requesting a transparency report.

Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can't see a reason as to why something like that shouldn't be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn't? I never quite got the krama drama.

I heard strawberry jam can be made with just strawberries, water and sugar on a frying pan on the radio. Sounds simple. Sounds simple to exclude the sugar, too. I don't see any minimalist jam like that on the supermarket shelves though. Does it taste poor or have I found nice little market (albeit, with incredibly low barriers to entry)? And, how could I format my last sentence so I get out of this terrible habit of ending sentences with brackets!