'round these parts, the way to persuade people of controversial points is proof, not just assertion. So far you haven't offered anything but big talk.

You've got this theory that makes a certain prediction, namely that your posts will be downvoted because everyone but you is an idiot. There is a competing theory which makes the same prediction, namely that your posts will be downvoted because they lack productive content. In order for your theory to beat out the competition, you'll need to find some point where the predictions differ, and then demonstrate that yours is more accurate.

Surely, if we are such fools, and you understand the irrationalities involved so well, you could compose a post which manipulates those corrupt thought-structures into providing you with upvotes?

But that is not my complaint or my goal, my complaint is that I am receiving bad karma for no good reason and my goal is to get people to recognize this.

Proving that someone didn't have a good reason for doing something is a lot harder than saying that it's so. If you want to get fewer downvotes, there are ways you can do that; if you want to avoid changing your posting style, you could also do that. You cannot do both. Life presents choices.

Telepathy that's more like reliable cellphone service would make a lot of general societal things, including any widely-agreed-upon moral system, easier to implement because transaction cost reductions benefit everyone involved.

Not as straightforward as it sounds. Irrelevant one-sentence comments upvoted to +10 will attract more downvotes than they would otherwise.

Low variation among parenting styles is a better way to phrase what I meant by extracurriculars.

As other commenters have pointed out, that 5% figure seems like it could be adequately explained by modern developed-world kids having close to 95% of their time locked up in school, 'extracurricular activities,' or sleep, none of which involve parental interaction.

I don't find it hard to believe that such preferences would be common among non-actresses. One way or another, the jet-or-lack-thereof isn't going to be right up in her face during the actual kissing.

Doesn't come as a big surprise for me. Instincts are the rocks, early learned behavior is the soil, and nobody can build a house on clouds.

Honesty is correlation with the speaker's understanding of the facts; truth is correlation with the actual facts. A person can be speaking honestly but falsely, or truly but dishonestly, if their understanding is in some way less than perfectly correlated with the facts. What's so fnordish about that?

What? I'm not saying insufficient parental nurturing is the cause of all psychological problems, I'm just saying that

parenting has close to zero effect on how children turn out.

is a very strong claim, and that I have seen very strong evidence against it. You're going to need to make a hell of a case. (please note: linking two pop-psych books and saying that my politely disagreeing with you constitutes proof is not much of a case at all.) This makes me think of someone looking at the equations for electromagnetism and gravitation, then concluding "logically" that gravity will have nearly zero effect on the path of a projectile.