One problem with this system is that it can violate the "non-dictatorship" criteria for fairness, since a single voter (or small group of allied voters) could strategically withhold votes during potential landslide elections and spend them during close elections. With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.

Why is it an evolutionary advantage to betray our lies with behavioural clues?

I notice that when mammals hide from predators, or stealthily approach prey, they frequently betray their location and presence. For example, they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals, which some animals can sense.

To ask why it's an evolutionary advantage to betray our location with such cues is to ask a question so wrong that the attempt to answer it will systematically lead me away from understanding what's going on.

Now, it may be that lying is not analogous; that there really is a selected-for predisposition to be caught out in our lies, as you imply with your question. And if so, asking where that selection pressure comes from is a useful question.

But that's a significant "if."

I am finding it difficult to communicate with matabele. Expected payoff is low in this tangent. I will stop attempting.

This is an excellent quote ... I downvoted it here ...

Please elaborate.

See the second set of ellipsis? Find the part that went there. That is all.

Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

– James Baldwin

The obscure language was likely due to the political context of the original; try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

I have based this assumption on my perhaps mistaken impression that many LW users appear to have a bias toward Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation of QM. If you have rational arguments to defend this position, please feel free to defend your position below.

I doubt the QM reference has anything to do with the reaction to your comment. It was downvoted for persistent confusion in the thread and smug irrelevance.

As for QM interpretations, that is boring and has been argued to death and is completely of-topic here. Look here for a list of subjects that have been thoroughly covered (the QM sequence) and if you must argue argue in the "the winner is many worlds" post that you'll see there. A few people will agree with you. Some may argue. Most will ignore you because it is not their responsibility.

And there you have it: symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts.

One of the contexts in which I found this aphorism insightful, was in certain interpretations of quantum physics.

Oh! That makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like the most reliable technique, but this particular term is now a lot clearer. Thanks!

Of course, this seems to me like 'Love' is then merely a general "Interface Method", to be implemented depending on the Class in whatever manner, in context, will go against strife and/or promote well-being of cared-for others.

Which is indeed not something real, but a simple part of a larger utility function, in a sense.

I'm not quite sure what this abstraction would even correspond to. In fact, when I ask myself what abstract meaning 'Love' could possibly have, I find myself confused. It seems there might be some 'Love' somewhere that feels like it is the ideal, abstract 'Love', but no matter where I search I cannot find it on my map.

I'd like it if you could help me map this "abstract ideal" in my conceptspace map, if that's possible.

Another Goethe quote, whilst on that tack; seems appropriate for disciples of GS.

Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe