That's what I thought you meant. But Christianity has existed for less than 4% of humanity's time, and what we ordinarily call "the ancient world" started 3000-6000 years earlier.

Our local downvoter doesn't seem to have noticed that it doesn't have any effect on what is read or commented on as karma restrictions on posting also seem to have been lifted.

Yes it's a statistical prediction. The 90% confidence interval will be correct for 90% of people who use this method. 10% will be wrong. Apriori you are 9 times more likely to be in the first group than in the second.

Once you start creating more and more variants of the the same pattern (double DA, other time frames) you don't really make the probability worse, you are doing p-hacking.

I don't see this as an alternative variant to fudge the numbers. To me this seems to be the correct way to do the calculation. This makes the above argument correct, that 90% of people that use this argument will be correct.

Whereas the original version assumes you are randomly given human, which is obviously incorrect. As most humans would not be born at a time where this kind of statistical knowledge exists. Just the fact that you ask the doomsday argument, shows there is something special about you, and puts you into a different reference class.

I wrote a thing that turned out to be too long for a comment: The Doomsday Argument is even Worse than Thought

It is always surprising to me that people get into car accidents as rarely as they do. I would have expected people to get into fatal accidents every six months of commuting or so.

I have experienced this. But not like an urge but rather as a feeling of surprise how little it takes to die (or at least horrible accident) and how little it actually happens. An appreciation how amazing reliable we humans are.

It's basically what I meant above, but above I didn't put in the details. As a nerd myself that's a more instinctive response than actually speaking up and asserting boundaries. But I'm fairly certain that asserting boundaries is often the more effective action.

I also think that this lack of this assertion of boundaries is what makes Nice Guys™ unattractive. Woman like guys who are nice in the sense that they give others compliements and improve their surroundings but they find guys who don't assert boundaries in situations that warrant setting boundaries less attractive.

This seems to point to very different understand of what a tact filter is. I read your sentence as implying that it is an on/off thing.

If my girlfriend does something says something not nice, I can mentally say : "Hey, she's emotional at the moment but that doesn't mean that she means any harm to me. It's hormones. Let's sit through it." I can do that from a place of compassion without feeling too bad about the interaction.

Alternatively I can connect with the feeling of irritation that arises and assert a boundary. If there a filter there no clear feeling of irritation from which to speak.

I don't think the goal is just having a relationship. We also care to some extend about quality. I think the filter reduces relationship quality.

There were times when a girlfriend of me was emotional as a result treated me in a way that she herself doesn't consider nice. There are two possible responses: (A) I say "Stop, don't treat me this way" (B) I use a tact filter and simply ignore the fact that she's emotional and doesn't treat me well

If I do (B) she's afterwards guilty about having been a person who treated me badly. If I do (A) she spends less time acting in a way for which she afterwards judges herself. (A) is also behavior that creates attraction.

I think that it makes sense to work towards being the kind of person who does (A).

Independent of my own experiences I'd hazard a guess that needing alone time, preferring being alone and perceiving social interaction as draining are all highly correlated.

Personality tests are supposed measure traits that aren't skills. I think it's possible to be both good at feeling good alone and feeling good with other people. It's possible to be bad at both of them. I don't believe in the just-world-hypothesis that people who don't enjoy one automatically enjoy the other. (I use the word "enjoy" vaguely to point in a direction)

I don't think that personality test tell you about tradeoff. They are not designed for that purpose.