I think most people would come up with the correct answer 'with extension'. Such as 'increasing by 2 in ascending order' where the correct answer 'ascending order' is the basis that they have then specified further. In my eyes they have then given a partially correct answer and should not strive so hard to 'avoid this mistake' in the future. My reasoning is that you might then 'dismiss out of hand' a partially correct answer and by default do the same to the 'fully correct answer'. It is better then, to make a habit out of breaking down a hypotheses before dismissing it. Or you could just use up all your energy on convincing yourself that nothing should be believed, ever. Since belief means to know without proof.

That Urban Dictionary definition entails that "disgust" does imply a moral component or a judgement that something is universally wrong. However, in my experience, it does not. I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight "disgusting" without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone's immoral behavior as disgusting.) The OED Online describes the word mainly as a visceral reaction and only in passing says it may be brought about by a "disagreeable action".

Instead of creating a new word for what "disgust" currently means and making "disgust" mean something else, perhaps we should leave "disgust" as it is and come up with a word for "moral revulsion". Something like "consternation" or "appallment".

Wow. I have the practice (common to sci-fi readers, I have heard) of taking unfamiliar words in my stride, attempting to figure them out in context, and taking it on faith that if I can't figure it out now, more context will soon be given. So that is how I approach new words on the internet (like 'squick'). This is only important because my internal definition for squick had developed into something very much like saying "eww" or the word disgust. It didn't have that crucial 'no moral component' tag for me. Interesting!

A small nitpick, and without having read the other comments, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned before.

The 5 actions listed under the heading "Emotion and Deontological Judgments" squick me. But they don't disgust me.

From Urban Dictionary:

The concept of the "squick" differs from the concept of "disgust" in that "squick" refers purely to the physical sensation of repulsion, and does not imply a moral component.

Stating that something is "disgusting" implies a judgement that it is bad or wrong. Stating that something "squicks you" is merely an observation of your reaction to it, but does not imply a judgement that such a thing is universally wrong.

It may be useful to add this to our collective vocabulary. Some might argue it's adding unnecessary labels to too-similar a concept, but I think the distinction is useful.

Please, let me know if something like this has been explored already?

It's more likely that some of the younger participants would be weirded out by someone their parents' age discussing anything related to sex, something they are probably still compartmentalizing into the "they did it once for me, once for my brother" box.

The problem with strategic ignorance is if the situation is something like 6/1 vs. 5/1000.

Most people care more about themselves than others, but I think that at that level most people would just choose to lose a dollar and give 999 more.

If you choose to not learn something, then you don't know what you're causing to happen, even if it would entirely change what you would want to do.

I'm a graduate of an IB school, and even took a few IB-level courses, just not the full course.

I also took a ToK class, but our school offered AP and IB varieties, and I went with AP, not having the full-IB prerequisites.

I find that what really matters is the teacher teaching the coursework, not the class itself. OTOH, having a class about ToK in the first place is at least a step in the right direction.

Regardless, as an alumni (and still friends with a few of the teachers there), I may have a bit of an in to do some sort of presentation. Likely based off of Liron's YAAB.

I have had classes with them, asked questions. and met them personally. I should have anticipated disbelief. And yes, I didn't notice that I categorized Marcello as non-math, sorry Marcello!

You are the brightest person I know. And I know Dan Dennett, Max Tegmark, Robert Trivers, Marcello, Minsky, Pinker and Omohundro.

Unfortunately, those are non-math geniuses, so that speaks for only some sub-areas of cognition which, less strictly categorizable than the clearly scalable domain of math, are not subject to your proposed rule of "one standard deviation above you they blurr"

In all fairness, I think Islamic fundamentalists really do hate our freedom. They hate our entire way of life, and this freedom is a part of that.

Hating the freedoms of western society doesn't preclude one from committing brave, selfless acts, though. Unfortunately for us.