"Sure, I'll correct it, even though people are obviously aware of [caricature of your idiotic warning]."

That is, accepting a correction with passive-aggressive jab at the dummy who pointed it out. [Note: edited comment several times, a reply might begin before the latest.]

Lukeprog may actually be a rather unusual test-case, since he's an atheist who was generally aware of what Scientology is about, yet he chose to approach the 'course' instrumentally. See the OP and his discussion with David Gerard. Regardless, even a moderate probability of such harmful effect ought to be of concern to those who would use the routine to improve their social skills.

Keep in mind that even techniques expressly designed for improving social skills can result in "social robots" when misapplied. And this is the first time I see de-facto hour-long staring contests (from a cult indoctrination course, no less) mentioned as a way to improve eye contact skills.

I'm always skeptical when receiving life advice from successful people, because their advice is biased towards taking too much risk, because successful people are selected for having been lucky.

Also note the reason Scott Adams gives for disregarding the advice of successful people. :)

...if you're not riding an equally high wave of popularity and love; perhaps you are not qualified to make these assertions regarding humanity's secret thoughts.

No, the estimated quality of the conclusion should be a function of the quality of the argument and the supporting evidence, not the identity of the arguer. To do otherwise is to commit the classic argument-by-authority or ad-hominem fallacies.

And from the grandparent of this post::

In other words, I suggest that participants (and voters) embrace the view that it is at the least bad manners and at most toxic to the community for a participant to persist in many long comments over many months which tend to take place too many inferential steps away from what most of us comprehend, believe and accept even if that participant is a successful wielder of the material. (ADDED: and for that reason, I will stop using certain supports from evolutionary psychology even though I have long believed and accepted them).

That's rationalizing groupthink. IMO you should speak the truth as best you can, and change your estimated truth based on the arguments you read and the evidence presented, not on guesses about what your audience is willing to listen to.

I hope you were being sarcastic.

This reminds me of some of the literature on fallibility of introspection. (If you have time only for one essay, read "The Unreliability of Naïve Introspection" and try the experiment with the playing card.)

As far as generalizing about an entire gender: It's extremely likely that I know a wildly unrepresentative sample of women, but why would you assume that the pickup artists don't? I imagine they meet vast numbers of women, but if they find them all at parties and clubs and bars, they're going to meet the kinds of women who go to parties and clubs and bars, not the ones who spend their time gardening at home or who go to all-women gyms to avoid being hit on or the ones who play D&D with their brothers in the basement. Even if their statements are accurate about that sort of woman (which I am not yet prepared to believe), that doesn't make them applicable to the entire gender, and the stereotype remains wildly inappropriate and offensive. If you're hearing things about men as a group that don't apply to you or any men you know, then chances are you're not hearing from someone who has a really ideal sample. If a female friend of mine complains about her sixth boyfriend in a row being a jerk, I don't conclude that men are jerks, I conclude that she has terrible taste.

I don't believe large numbers of people were typically thrown out of hunter gatherer bands for incompetence,

The number of people who have fears of being discovered as incompetent (e.g. "impostor syndrome") strongly suggests a biological explanation.

In any case, my model is slightly broader than Kaj's summary implies -- this sort of fear-of-discovery applies to any acts or personal qualities that, if known, would lead to lower tribal status. You don't have to be actually thrown out of your tribe in order for discovery of a negative quality to alter your reproductive opportunities (or your probability of surviving long enough to have some).

Good points. I freely admit that my comment which is the sibling of your comment contains many more inferential steps and many more places where you just have to trust my judgement than the most successful conversations on Less Wrong contain. I think that if enough people persist in explaining material that is many inferential steps away from what the majority here believe and accept or if participants just accept such material uncritically because the consequences of the material being valid is so tantalizing, then Less Wrong will become less useful as a place to teach and to learn the kinds of (nifty) things that have been sucessfully taught and learned on Less Wrong.

In other words, I suggest that participants (and voters) embrace the view that it is at the least bad manners and at most toxic to the community for a participant to persist in many long comments over many months which tend to take place too many inferential steps away from what most of us comprehend, believe and accept even if that participant is a successful wielder of the material. (ADDED: and for that reason, I will stop using certain supports from evolutionary psychology even though I have long believed and accepted them).

ADDED. when Eliezer wanted to bring readers many inferential steps, he was careful to take us one step at a time and, after each step, to observe how many comprehended (accepted) it. I humbly suggest that if your name is not "Eliezer", then if an attempt to take us one step in some direction is not met with widespread acceptance, then you refrain from using Less Wrong to try to take us a second step in that direction.

Here's an unorganized list of interesting things I've learned about drugs over the years.

• Anti-drug people cried wolf way past the point where you should stop listening to them.

• Even the worst drugs that legitimately screw people up do so because those people are taking them in ridiculously stupid ways. These drugs can often be useful tools to have when used responsibly.

• Addiction, as far as I can tell, can be prevented just by using a little forethought, precommitments, and outside view: "This drug might be too fun, so I wont do it again for at least a month, no matter what. Longer if it turns out to be more temping than predicted", and "Is this the kind of thing that addicts do before becoming addicted? (and that non addicts don't)"

• Some foods do produce strong enough mental changes to notice (if you're paying attention). Butter and MCT oil both improve my brain function. The effect is different from the 'racetam family. For example, when playing guitar, my fingers aren't sped up, but they do play new songs as if I'm more familiar with them.

• GHB is in all ways a better version of alcohol. Therapeutic index, long term toxicity, clear headedness, shorter duration of action, no hangover, higher sleep quality, possibly even less addictive, and causes numerically fewer date rapes (:P). It's a shame that this hasn't replaced alcohol. EDIT: Might not be so non toxic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-Hydroxybutyric_acid#Neurotoxicity

• Marijuana makes SWIM feel mentally impaired and makes it harder to put sentences together, but has also led to his fastest arithmetic time since Alexei came out with his lifetracking app. The average of times was not improved, however.

• It is possible to sleep on modafinil, but even if you stay up late on it, you can wake up at a normal time the next day and feel good. Modafinil makes all of SWIM feel energetic except for facial muscles.

• Threshold doses of mushrooms taken before bedtime seem to make SWIM wake up in an exceptionally good mood and feeling exceptionally well rested, regardless of whether the mushrooms helped him get to sleep earlier or if they kept him up very late by making him be productive.

• My hand wavy model for psychedelics is that they change your thinking in ways that make it easier to move through thought/belief/identity space than normal, but with no strong bias in any direction. Most people (especially in therapeutic environments) tend to find positive paths, but it's possible to walk down the wrong path too. Learn to navigate.

• My other hand wavy psychedelics model (for describing the experiences themselves, rather than the effect of them) is that they turn up the signal from many different parts of your brain. For example, it cranks up the volume for pattern matching algorithms and interest/curiosity- sometimes to the point of noticing patterns that you've never noticed before, and sometimes to the point of seeing patterns that don't exist at all. It also tends to make you see things as if its the first time seeing them. For example, despite knowing for his whole life that ageing is bad, 50ug of LSD made SWIM see old people 'for the first time' and get a deeper appreciation for "Aging SUCKS, and the world is insane for ignoring it!". Mechanisms like this can make it easier to take ideas seriously (which makes it easier to make lasting changes ^^^).

• Psychedelics are much less scary and less dangerous than most people assume. Starting with low doses and proper set and setting, people rarely freak out, and the main damage it causes when it happens is to turn people away from psychedelics. There is next to no physiological danger.

• Psychedelics aren't a whole new level more intense than marijuana. SWIM has had his two most intense and scary experiences after taking one hit of marijuana even though he has taken a fairly high dose of LSD and has taken low dose psychedelics more times than he can list. His only close friend to have had a scary experience had it on marijuana and wasn't scared on LSD.

http://www.calculatem.com/

I was told by a friend who reports to have drastically benefitted from Piracetam that it requires ~2 weeks to take effect, based on his and his housemate's experiences. I abandoned a piracetam regime a few days in because it had little observable effect besides increasing energy, currently a few days into my second attempt.

ETA: Each of us supplemented it with Choline, sourced http://www.nutraplanet.com/product/primaforce/piracetam-choline-citrate-stack-1-1-units.html