How would that work though. This isn't magic and I assume that there is some feature of north (something like magnetics) that explains how this works. I mean, it must be the case that there is some feature of facing north that we can learn to detect. However how can you detect the direction of a person, it's not like they are likely to emit some kind of planet wide signal.

SSRIs have aromanticism as a (rare-ish) side effect, allthough Scott Alexander didn't mention that in http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ . He says it is super easy to get a SSRI prescription.

I think your list of goals people try to achieve through engaging in romance is woefully incomplete. Humans function better when they're deeply attached to other people, on all sorts of levels. Romance and (non-solo) sex are nearly the best way of creating those attachments. (Filial relationships might be even better. So you might not need romance as long as your parents are around.) Lack of such attachments shortens lifespan, causes depression and has a bunch of other terrible effects.

If you think the companionship to be found in romantic relationships is comparable to that of deep friendships, I'm sorry, but I really don't think you know much about romantic companionship. There's an attainable depth of romantic love where you say "I'll spend my life with you even if you become a cripple tomorrow and I give you everything I have, including all opportunities for romance with anyone else ever, and if you feel the same towards me that's the best thing that's ever happend to me" and actually mean it. (And it isn't infatuation if it's still there after a couple of years.) Can you imagine such a state of mind? Because that's among the things you say you're trying to get rid of, and I find that hard to understand except by supposing you've never felt that. I have a lot of very deep friendships, including people I would literally kill for, and none of those come close to actual, capital L, Love.

I just read most of Signal and the Noise, and he brings up Overcoming Bias and interviewed Robin Hanson, and then his next chapter is about being "less wrong" (he specifically and repeatedly uses this phrase) when using bayesian reasoning. Is this a coincidence?

Yeah, good visualizations allow us to see the slow but steady improvements.

Maybe we should do the same things in our personal lives, e.g. to make a 1m long timescale of our lives, and put there all our successes (such as "learned to walk", "learned to talk", "completed school", "found a boyfriend/girlfriend", "started a blog", "composed a song", "had 10000 readers on the blog", etc.), and suddenly we would realize how awesome we are!

If you feel like writing about it, I'd like to hear how exactly LW influenced your life.

Hm, maybe I will. : )
It definitely feels like it's been a tremendously good influence on me, even if it might be more challenging to find hard evidence to support that feeling (and we know how important that is). At the very least, I feel that I've learned so much about advanced reasoning skills and about biases and pitfalls that can get in your way if you don't take them into account.

I'd say the Human's Guide to Words is a great example of a sequence that's helped me think in ways that are less likely to be baffled by or misinterpret complicated situations. The notion that a label has no intrinsic importance, and that its applicability is completely irrelevant and uninteresting if you already know all the features that would be implied by your possible usage of that label, sure saves you a lot of trouble when it comes to defining your identity and dealing (or not bothering to deal) with people who are going to insist that you are or are not an X.

And because stupidity have more direct impact on IQ score, uglyness on actor profession opportunities, color-blind on painter options and spirituality-blindness on inner feeling of well-being perhaps?

So how do you pitch it? Do you go like "alright, you've overcome the single most obvious manifestation of irrationality, now how about all the other ones?" Or do you make any other attempt to tie rationality into their core purpose?

To make scaling possible and still be able to competently tackle the pedagogical challenges we face, CFAR has arranged itself into two divisions: CFAR Core and CFAR Labs.

Simon Wardley has made an excellent case that a three tiered structures are better than two tiers, may be worth looking into his logic: http://blog.gardeviance.org/2015/04/the-only-structure-youll-ever-need.html

It worked for me - like I described here.

But the more obvious difference between LWers and non-LWers, according to me, is that LWers do not appear "stuck", while a solid majority of non-LWers do.

Ambiguity has its uses. In flirting for example, where the offer of intimacy is made implicitly so rejection can be given implicitly (by pretending not to have heard the offer) in order to avoid the pain of explicit rejection.

And in all sorts of situations where explicit statements of particular facts or opinions are punishable, the ability to make them in ambiguous, i.e. deniable form, can be crucial.

But I find the baseline of unintentional ambiguity in most forms of human-to-human communication to be a problem, not an asset, most of the time.