A relationship between two rationalists can be much happier and freer of drama. If Eliezer's example isn't clear enough, here's another one.

"I'm worried about X."

Non-rationalist: "I've told you a million times, that's not gonna happen! Why can't you trust me?"

Rationalist: "Ok, let's go to Wikipedia, get some stats, and do the expected value calculation. Let me show you how unlikely this is."

Which conversation ends in a fight? Which conversation ends in both people actually feeling more at ease?

There are female memes to the effect "Men are endearing fools," and male memes to the effect "Women are beautiful fools." But a fool eventually gets frustrating. It is an incredible relief to meet someone who isn't foolish. "Whoa... you mean you can embrace an idea without being an uncritical fanatic? You mean you can actually make allowances for overconfidence bias, instead of taking reckless gambles? You can listen to the content of what I'm saying instead of the applause lights?" Having a rationalist partner means never having to say "Oh, you wouldn't understand."

Also, on cultishness: I saw an ad the other day for a new book on how to start a green activist organization. How to attract members, get speaking engagements, raise money, build momentum, etc. My first reaction was "Oh, that's nice; I'm sure that book would be handy for environmentalists." Then I thought "If we did half the stuff that tree-hugging college kids do, we'd call it Dark Arts and we'd be terrified of turning into a cult."

And some people still believe that people choose to be homosexual.

If that were so, why would teenagers commit suicide instead of choosing to be heterosexual.

To me, a gay man is just less competition, and since lots of women are not interested in me anyway, what difference does it make if some of them are gay?

Aside from being socialized to expect to be bad at analytical problems, I'd suggest (from aggregate reading about stereotype threat, feminist issues, and my experiences growing up) that part of the issue is that there's a lot of fear of being seen to try hard and fail. It's perfectly socially acceptable (unfortunately) for a young woman to doubt her own abilities to solve a problem and in so doing, decline to try it. However, if she's seen struggling with something, she's likely to encounter derision, with the implicit or explicit statement that she's reaching out of her depth. A self-effacing attitude, or the semblance of it, is socially necessary, because while young women are allowed to be Smart, they are not allowed to be Arrogant. I can provide references for these points if needed, though I believe it's pretty familiar ground for those at all versed in gender socialization norms.

Into purely personal territory now - take as you will - there was a time (around 4th grade through perhaps 10th) when I was that afraid of failing. If I tried a novel problem (even if no one else understood it), and couldn't immediately figure out what to do to solve it, my (male) peers jumped in with taunts along the lines of "she's not so smart after all." There were several years where it felt like any major failure would utterly ruin my credibility as a Bright Girl. It was far easier to assess the difficulty of a new problem, and quietly decline if I didn't think I could handle it.

Concerning the gender imbalance on the nerd spaces of the internet, I could probably go on all night about it, but I'm about to pass out and start drooling on my keyboard. Maybe I will go on all night about it in a separate post on a separate night.

I recently started a theoretically humorous webcomic about the Singularity entitled Singuhilarity. It's poorly drawn and a little rough in places, but it touches on a number of lesswrong-type subjects as well as some pretty standard science fiction tropes.

Here's the first comic and here's the latest.

He can only be blackmailed with such photos if he would mind having them displayed to some third party.

People interested in the discussion between Eliezer and Richard might find this Wikipedia article interesting: Depersonalization Disorder

Essentially, people behave as they otherwise would, except they don't have a sense of "self-awareness". That is, they did something, and they know they did something, but it doesn't feel as though it was them who did the thing. Often people feel as though they are automata, pre-programmed to respond to certain stimuli, but that there is no "self" driving them.

The disorder also tends to cause its inverse, which is derealization. That is, the individual perceives himself to be real, but nothing external is real.

This effect can be generated with drugs, and it can also be treated with drugs. This suggests to me that the entire "sense of self" is caused by a chemical interaction within the brain.

That could still be a great thing for us provided that current human minds were uploaded into the resulting computronium explosion.

Many females I've dated get actively offended if I the guys try to pay rather than splitting the bill. And frankly, they have a right to be offended

I wouldn't want to deny anyone the right to be offended at anything they please but for my part I would bid them politely goodnight and delete their phone number. Getting actively offended over things that are not a big deal is a huge red flag. It indicates either specific emotional issues or a generally high maintenance personality. I'll leave those girls to you Josh. :)

Some sample sane responses in such circumstances:

• No, we'll split it.
• Hey, none of that, Neanderthal! (With a smile and or fake arm slap to indicate lightheartedness. Equivalent to assertiveness with humor.)

Ideal response:

• Sure, but I've got the next one!

This follows from a general principle that a propensity for taking offence is an unattractive trait and an indicator of immature boundaries. If you want something different ask for it or actively make it happen.

For an example parallel to PUA, men may get squicked by this advice for women, even though they know it works.

That's an interesting list. A lot of those serve as general advice that tends to be given to guys too.

• Always look great, whatever your income.
• Never reveal information you don't have to. An enigmatic [man] drives [women] wild.
• Try and stay in shape and involve some fitness regime at a gym.
• Never be available when he wants you to be.
• If he is available Tuesday, you are available Thursday.
• Ensure you are a good kisser.
• Never ever talk about previous [girlfriends], particularly their prowess in the bedroom. Your ex-[girlfriends] are your business only.
• Never assume anything about your date until you choose to know him better. You cannot always tell by looking.
• Never ever come across as too available or too desperate. [She] will run a mile.
• If the [girl] in the corner is gorgeous, go get [her] and create the need in [her] for you. Never wait for [women] to come to you because you may watch [her] leave with someone else.
• If you want a child, don't mention it on the first few dates.
• Never ever criticize [her] mother unless you want to remain single.

Then there are some tips about evaluation strategies that guys tend to be warned to consider:

• If any man shows the slightest signs of possessiveness or insecurity, run like the wind. Life is too short for boys.
• If his shoes or hygiene are a disgrace, dump him.

(Yup. Shoes, and insecurity. Those two are the big ones in fashion and behavioral signalling respectively.)

Then there are others that guys are often suggested strategies for dealing with. (Such strategies vary rather a lot depending on individual identity, what kind of relationship is desired and pure arbitrariness.)

• Let your man pay. If he is interested, he is interested enough to ensure you eat well and get home safely in a cab.

Often I'll do this as a hat tip to tradition or as a pure matter of convenience. It depends a bit on the girl. Sometimes it will pay for a meal then say, for example, that now she can take me and buy me icecream. With respect to the attitude conveyed in the above tip, if a girl does expect me to pay and conveys that then I expect her to do so from the position that it is a gesture that she appreciates, not her prerogative. I am not paying for her time, the transaction is 'time and company' for 'time and company'. She isn't a hooker!

• Ensure you receive flowers. If he doesn't know what a florist is, dump him.

I like how the unreasonable tips come with "dump him" instructions. Dumping her would be hard work after all. Flowers are to add flavour of novelty within an established relationship and even then subject to preference.

• Keep dates brief, but your men interested. Less is always more.

Yawn. Organising dates is a significant overhead. Short is the opposite of interesting to me.

• Never ever sleep with a guy until he has fallen for you. Sex early in your dating game plan will ruin everything.

I have found sex too early in the relationship to sometimes be a mixed blessing. Primarily because it can sometimes cover over incompatibility or lack of other common interests. But I don't think that is what the tip is getting at (which is defintely squick).

• Always keep a guy waiting and never turn up early. It is a lady's perogative.

I prefer to arrange meetings where no waiting for either party is required and there is a minimum of inconvenience if someone flakes. Apart from that there are all sorts of ways to handle this and other sorts of power play in a way that eliminates deliberate discourtesy while providing the best experience for both parties. That's where sharing strategies and successes with others who have found ways to handle a situation comes in handy.

• Weekend shopping trips with girlfriends are sacred and not available for dates.

Sure, whatever. Just assume an approximately constant pool of 'asking out's with two or three potential times given for each ask out. Calibrate availability and acceptance accordingly.

From what I observe of my own behaviour in general, if doing something does not work then I go and do something (or in this case someone) else. Einstein would call that 'not being insane'.

• Keep your man standing on quicksand by shifting landmarks and goalposts constantly.

I have fond memories of the time back in my teenage years when I realised that in dating, as in the rest of life, the only goalposts I have to worry about are my own. The approval of others is sometimes useful and sometimes it is fun to play other people's games. But other times it is more fun to reverse them or ignore them outright.

• Never talk too much about your father and how your date measures up in comparison.
• You may well have all the bodily functions of a man, just try not to demonstrate them early on.

(Whatever.)

• Always reply to emails at least 3 days after receipt.
• A man who doesn't reply to your email within 3 days should be ignored.

Now there is some real squick. My biggest peeve is bullshit double standards like that. Fortunately they are self screening once again.

When interpreting a story (or news, for that matter), I find it helpful to remember that my interpretation lies on a spectrum between pure insight and unhelpful distraction (or worse). Way back when, reading 1984, I felt like I'd gotten an amazingly useful new perspective. In retrospect, it got me overly-paranoid and I had to review what I'd taken away from it.

The nice thing about Eliezer's stories is that they're much harder to accidentally take as fictional evidence. They come off as obviously ridiculous, so there isn't much danger that you'll accidentally interpret those worlds as instructive of our own. Easy to use correctly; hard to use incorrectly.