The possible effect of environmental pollutants on human health (mental and/or physical) is another fascinating and extremely complex topic.

It's not another topic. It the same topic of expanding effort making decisions to increase IQ. Mercury poluttion doesn't kill or decrease lifespan significantly but it reducdes IQ. If you don't accept the existance of IQ as a valid measurement the EPA case for regulating mercury falls flat.

There is no agreement among experts on how to define intelligence,

Actually IQ has broad support from a lot of experts.

and it is widely recognized that standard IQ and aptitude tests do not encompass all aspects of the topic.

IQ doesn't need to encompass all aspects of the topic to be a quite useful metric.

Do you oppose the EPA decision to reduce mercury pollution because it lowers children's IQ on the grounds that IQ isn't a good measurement of intelligence? They should rather not increase the average IQ of the population through regulation?

Over the years I've read several fascinating books on the nature of intelligence in both human and nonhuman animals; sadly, I don't have the titles at my fingertips. There is no agreement among experts on how to define intelligence, and it is widely recognized that standard IQ and aptitude tests do not encompass all aspects of the topic. It seems pointless to me to expend much effort in increasing human intelligence until the topic is better defined. I think that providing people with analytical thinking skills and the encouragement to use them is likely to deliver better outcomes for humanity.

Thanks to the efforts of organizations like MIRI, four years ago I began adapting work I performed in the value of information to AI safety. I am much indebted to these organizations for increasing public awareness of the topic. I describe this adaptation process here: http://tinyurl.com/h4ttwuo

Why do you think "a person being primed for feeling pain when being separated from their new partner" matters here?

Are you thinking about studies that, at the very least, suggest the possibility of such a separation being an option that the subject will experience based on the outcome of some action/decision being studied? :( that's horrible ):

A study that relies only on self-reported claims of 'being in love' might be interesting to read, but such a study would be of higher quality if there was an objective way to take a group of people and sort them into one of two groups: "in love" or "not in love."

No, not automatically. An objective measurement can be both worse and be better than a self-reported measurement. There no reason to believe that one is inherently better.

Are there any studies that highlight which biases become stronger when someone "falls in love"? (Assume the love is reciprocated.) I am mainly interested in biases that affect short- and medium-term decisions, since the state of mind in question usually doesn't last long.

One example is the apparent overblown usage of the affect heuristic when judging the goodness of the new partner's perceived characteristics and actions (the halo effect on steroids).

I'm confused by your use of the term "honor." Let's taboo that term. Can you explain what's wrong with desiring to be better than others?

Superdonor conveys a feeling of superiority, as in better than other donors. In other words, even if you donate less, if you donate more effectively, you can still be better than other donors by donating more effectively.

My personal preference is that you promote honorable reasons for donating, while recognizing that dishonorable reasons exist. Donating so that I can feel superior to other donors who give less or give differently does not strike me as particularly honorable. I admit that I am using the term honor without ever having given much thought as to what it means.

Love your name. Are you alluding to trade-offs between false positives and negatives with it?

This is a fascinating and complex topic. To make the question tractable, I suggest first clarifying "you". Are we discussing a graduate student selecting a research topic for his/her PhD program? Are we discussing a professor who already has tenure? Are we discussing someone performing R&D in a corporate environment? Are we discussing a 'citizen scientist'? The four individuals I've identified here face very different situations.

I'm not an economist, but my understanding is that there exists a small subset of economists who are challenging the notion that productivity maximization is the proper goal of economics, considering that already realized past economic growth may be seriously damaging this planet's capability to sustain life. This just goes to show that trying to dictate a general goal for any field of study is likely to encourage the emergence of contrarians.