Maybe I should have included the whole paragraph:

"And even when "truth" can be clearly defined, it is a concept to which natural selection is indifferent. To be sure, if an accurate portrayal of reality, to oneself or to others can help spread one's genes, then accuracy of perception or communication may evolve. And often this will be the case (when, say, you remember where food is stored, and share the data with offspring or siblings). But when accurate reporting and genetic interest do thus intersect, that's just a happy coincidence. Truth and honesty are never favored by natural selection in and of themselves. Natural selection neither "prefers" honesty nor "prefers" dishonesty. It just doesn't care."

He's talking about the "maps" that humans/animals may carry in their brains. These maps don't need to match the territory to be adaptive (I think your criticism of the quote hinges on how you would define "significantly"). But there's quite a bit of space where a "bad map" does not prevent adaptive behavior.

For example, some non-venomous snakes "copied" the color patterns of venomous snakes. It's still adaptive for animals to avoid all snakes with this coloring (just to be safe) without needing to know the truth about which snake is dangerous and which isn't. And natural selection is "rewarding" the non-venomous snake for lying about how dangerous it is.

Keep in mind that Aesop's Fables didn't originally come with morals! That's a strictly Victorian perversion.

The Fables were originally meant to be understood and interpreted by everyone who heard them, themselves.

(edit) I will further note that many of the "traditional" morals pasted onto some of the Fables don't actually make much sense when looked at critically. Does "slow and steady wins the race" make sense in itself, much less as an explanation for "The Tortoise and the Hare"?

A much more plausible moral would be "talent is good, but hard work is better".

This advice can backfire. If you're applying it and I'm trying to say something you didn't expect, I'm going to get very frustrated -- trying phrasing after phrasing until you hear what I'm actually saying (or I'll walk away).

The advice can also work well.

I think it's necessary to keep per person probabilities for meaning what they say and meaning something novel.

I disagree. Perhaps this is true in already well understood fields of study, but in others we do not have any trunks or branches. Trying to understand general guidelines and principles in such situation necessitates first manufacturing them without much empirical evidence, which seems like a large mistake. In my opinion, the best thinkers are those who try to use general principles and specific details simultaneously, and in turn the best of those ones tend to look at details slightly more often.

One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to.

-- Elon Musk

Do I understand correctly that a more masculine finger ratio correlated strongly to support for feminism in both men and women?

I am also amused to note that, despite our extreme sex ratio, our BEM gender masculinity and femininity are almost exactly equal -- way below error.

I did forget. Could you link to a source?

These questions have answers, because humans have biochemistry

But the answers might be specific to each individual because the biochemistry of humans is not exactly the same.

Tell that to John Cage

Have we worked through the game theory here? It feels like negotiating with terrorists.