As far as I can tell, there have been few other studies which demonstrate the sophistication effect. One new study on this is West et al. (forthcoming), "Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot."

Here is the abstract:

The so-called bias blind spot arises when people report that thinking biases are more prevalent in others than in themselves. Bias turns out to be relatively easy to recognize in the behaviors of others, but often difficult to detect in our own judgments. Most previous research on the bias blind spot has focused on bias in the social domain. In two studies, we found replicable bias blind spots with respect to many of the classic cognitive biases studied in the heuristics and biases literature (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Further, we found that none of these bias blind spots were attenuated by measures of cognitive sophistication such as cognitive ability or thinking dispositions related to bias. If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability. Additional analyses indicated that being free of the bias blind spot does not help a person avoid the actual classic cognitive biases. We discuss these findings in terms of a generic dual-process theory of cognition.

My article forthcoming with Bostrom is too short to resolve the confusions you're discussing.

What we actually said about Nanny AI is that it may be FAI-complete, and that it is thus really full-blown Friendly AI even though when Ben Goertzel talks about it in English it might sound like not-FAI.

Here's an example of why "Friendly AI may be incoherent and impossible." Suppose that the only way to have a superintelligent AI beneficial to humanity is something like CEV, but nobody is ever able to make sense of the idea of combining and extrapolating human values. "Can we extrapolate the coherent convergence of human values?" sounds suspiciously like a Wrong Question. Maybe there's a Right Question somewhere near that space, and we'll be able to find the answer, but right now we are fundamentally philosophically confused about what these English words could usefully mean.

Would you mind adding this clarification to your original comment above that was upvoted 22 times? :)

No, I don't think the better half of 20th century analytic philosophers would have denied that.

Right. It's very useful to clear up conceptual confusions. That's much of what The Sequences can teach people. What's wrong is the claim that attempts to clear up conceptual confusions couldn't conflict with science.

the job of philosophy is to clear up our own conceptual confusions; that's not the sort of thing that ever could conflict with science!

I think this is wrong, and one of the major mistakes of 20th century analytic philosophy.

Three articles from this issue:

Melnyk, Materialism
Kircanski et al., Cognitive aspects of depression
Polger, Functionalism as a philosophical theory of the cognitive sciences

I haven't studied these issues, but I will note that Steve Sailor and VDARE.com are considered by many people to be racist bigots. Here, for example, is a VDARE article defending white supremacy:

White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with.

This doesn't mean that Sailor's claims in the article you quoted are false, but it might mean that Sailor is unusually susceptible to motivated cognition in a particular direction when it comes to racial issues.

Also, as a matter of community strategy, I'll note that citing sources like VDARE.com with apparent approval might make people of color feel unwelcome on LessWrong, even if the specific quoted claims are correct — just like citing Roissy might make women feel unwelcome even if you only quote true claims he has made.

Note that my name is misspelled and I was misquoted in the article, and I contacted the author about this.