Wait... Define “classical”.

Classical music is the art music produced in, or rooted in, the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 11th century to present times.[1] The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common practice period.

It doesn't really work this way. And to demonstrate, I bring up the prime numbers.

What many people don't quite understand is that mathematics, like the sciences does not invent things, it discovers them. The structures are already there. We did not invent cells, electricity, or gravity. They were already there. All Mathematics does is name them, categorize them, and show properties that they have. There is nothing human about the prime numbers, for instance. There really is nothing human about mathematics.

Counting is essentially the building block of all of mathematics. 1 2 3 etc... There is no other way to count than the way we count. Is this because of our definition of counting? Well of course, but it is nonetheless true. If Aliens were to count, they would have to count this way. Can I construct systems where 1+1=1? Of course. Consider clouds. If you add two clouds together, you just get a cloud. However, counting is still not changed. In order to even ask the question, I need to be able to discretely differentiate clouds, which means that counting is still there. You simply have a bizarre algebra on top of it.

To even consider a universe where counting goes by different rules is mind-boggling, because it would require the impossibility of discrete objects. Even waves would have peaks and valleys they would be able to be counted. Time generates rhythm and beats that would be counted. And there is only one way to count.

And once you realize there is only one way to count. You realize that addition gives us multiplication and that gives us the prime numbers. We didn't invent prime numbers. We discovered them.

Unfortunately I can't provide sources at the moment (Luke probably can), but I have seen research both sociological and anthropological showing that women and female higher primates in general have a tendency to try to mate with multiple dominate highly masculine males, sometimes secretly, while they tend to have long term pairings with less dominate, less masculine males. The theory is that the genes of the more masculine men lead to more fecund offspring, while the parenting of the less masculine men leads to higher offspring survival. In society this works out to women dating more masculine men (and testosterone is of course linked to the aggressiveness and risk taking we associate with "bad boys") prior to marriage, and then marrying less masculine men (nice guys). And if they cheat, they tend to cheat with "bad boys" and have their "nice guys" raise those kids.

EDIT: For pure anecdote, I am a nice guy (I think) who always complained about the "bad boy" thing, and now I am raising a step-daughter from my wife's youthful short term relationship with a guy everyone would still call a "bad boy." My wife is winning at natural selection! As is that jerk :(

How is that meaningless?

Because an individual's score on such a scale would tell something about their country but very little about the individual.

Until proven otherwise?

Can you unpack that a little? What would such a proof look like?

• Consequentialism: anything is good which has the preferred results.
• Deontology: behavior is good when it comports with the given moral code.
• Virtue ethics: people are good when they are possessed of the proper character traits.

To modify an example from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Good Samaritan is widely agreed to be a good person, but the reasons vary:

• A consequentialist calls them good because they improved the life of the victim they stopped to help;
• A deontologist calls them good because they acted in accordance with moral edicts such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
• A virtue ethicist calls them good because they have a charitable and benevolent nature.

I don't think the foreign policy is anywhere near as important as the other two: for example, most people are seldom directly affected by it. And in small, neutral countries such as Switzerland such an axis would be nearly meaningless.

Exactly.... to me this is always a sign of a strawman argument..

Asking for political compass scores on the survey could be nice, indeed. Plotting Less Wrongers on the 2d charter, one dot for one person could revel interesting clusters.

Well, I would say Bayes Theorem itself is purely logical, but realizing how it applies to updating your belief network and scoring your hypothesis, and then using it that way, especially the part of devising tests that could falsify your hypothesis, is rationality. I knew Bayes Theorem before discovering Less Wrong, I even knew a bit about Bayesian networks in computer science, but I never realized how deep Bayes Theorem was (and how it was a more powerful, more technical version of the scientific method) before reading the "intuitive explanation" and the Sequences.

But of course, the two are far from totally isolated. Words are fuzzy boundaries, not precise definitions.