I have changed my mind about lots of things since my introduction to less wrong (I'm much less political for instance), but I can't think of any specific posts right now. Mostly I've changed my mind through discussing things with rationalist friends.

Also, I'm much less social justicy since reading slatestarcodex and Yvain's previous blog.

Edit: Not a less wrong post, but Yvain's meditations on superweapons changed my mind about various social justice feminist thngs.

I have an anxiety disorder, and I managed to get through a very stressful few weeks (work deadline, family difficulties, a minor injury, a moth infestation and a difficult accountancy exam), without my anxiety causing too much trouble. A couple of weeks ago I felt paralysed with anxiety, and I forced myself to have a rest and to do some mindfulness exercises. I did the same the next day and I started to feel less anxious gradually. I completed the work deadlines and I'm pretty sure I passed the exam as well.

EDIT: This is particularly significant, since my anxiety has certainly improved a lot over the last couple of years. However, I was worried that it would become severe again in a stressful situation. I'm glad that it hasn't!

we should also be talking about how to make sure that people who aren't like us actually get some of it.

"Some" of it they generally do. But if you're going for equality, do note that people are usually paid for the value they produce and that individuals' capability to produce value differs GREATLY. Even if you control for things like socio-economic status.

The Enlightenment predates democratic orthodoxy. Monarchs like Louis XVI, Catherine II, and Frederick the Great were explicitly pro-Enlightenment.

You should know perfectly well that as long as MIRI needs to coexist and cooperate with the Cathedral (as colleges are the main source of mathematicians) they can't afford to be thought of as right wing. Take comfort at least in knowing that whatever Eliezer says publicly is not very strong evidence of any actual feelings he may or may not have about you.

People have yelled "Admin!" about downvote-abuse before, and so far as I know there is no instance in which any admin has visibly done anything in response.

Perhaps the admins don't care. Perhaps they happen not to have read any of the threads in which this has happened. Perhaps they don't want to encourage LW users to put effort into this sort of meta-issue. Perhaps one or more admins are downvote-abusers.

Whatever the reason(s), I think just shouting "Admin!" won't do much good unless it's accompanied by some kind of reason why an admin should take action, that they mightn't already have thought about and decided wasn't enough.

If having children were a net cost, humanity would have gone extinct long ago -- in fact, it would never have got started. The reality is, though, that on average, over a person's life, they produce more than they consume. For evidence, look around you, and compare the modern cornucopia with 100 years ago, or 1000. The investment that parents make in raising a child is paid back (to the world, not to those parents) in the resulting adult's life's works. This payback is ignored by the above argument.

This argument renders virtually everything immoral. Why is having children singled out? Resources spent on a drink from Starbucks are resources that could be spent on famine relief, therefore going to Starbucks is immoral. Resources spent developing philosophical arguments against various activities are resources that could be spent on famine relief, therefore Rachels's work is immoral. And so on.

Definitely a time commitment. I suggest it on the theory that smarter students tend to educate themselves, and what the public school is doing is nearly a complete waste with a kid like this. So the homeschooler who achieves a better result than the public school in only a few hours of effort a week is way ahead of the game. The homeschooler may be aware that he could do so much more if he spent more time, but that way lies useless guilt. Put a small amount of work in as the schooler, and if that doesn't translate into enough effort on the part of the schooled so that the net outcome is ahead of what was going to happen in the gigantically mismatched public school, you can switch the kid back in.

If the kid has been reading, as reported in OP, since he was 1, then it is not a bad guess that he is a good candidate to teach himself other things a child is expected to learn. I am assuming he was not reading at 1 because of an intensive teaching effort, that he more or less picked it up on his own with minimal exposure from "teachers."

Do you still believe that "CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) has a strong evidence base"?