Sorry to bother you with such a test! You don't have to do this, but I guess this is test phase 2. Please, it'd be great if you could participate further. :-)

Thanks!

This thread should be getting more comments and upvotes. It seems vastly more original, useful, and central to the core mission of LW than many recent discussion posts that have gotten more attention, including my own. What's up with that?

I don't think it would be possible to know the optimal moment to begin the process, but I think there are a number of diseases where it would be possible to choose a pretty good moment to begin.

I'm interested in suicide cryonics (not personally, just conceptually). Why do you say that's inadvisable? Would you recommend it for someone who had e.g. a deadly illness that would kill them in the next few weeks?

I understand that this wasn't the focus of the post, but wouldn't the best Monopoly strategy be to keep always winning until no one ever wants to play Monopoly with you again? Because you goal isn't to end this game without losing friends, it's to minimize total Monopoly-playing time without losing friends/

I have long made an explicit practice of trying to be a social supernode. It pays off, it really does. (Today's example: free Skype speech therapy sessions for my daughter from a friend I haven't seen in a decade, who I met because another online friend had mentioned to her that I was in the same city.)

Junior hedge fund portfolio managers make upwards of 600k, including their bonuses.

No, they don't. You're succumbing to huge survival bias. Some, successful, junior hedge fund portfolio managers make north of $600K and so make the news. A lot make much less or blow up and go out of business, but you don't hear about them and so assume they don't exist.

And, of course, just being smart and testing well does not automatically get you an invitation to Wall Street.

In any case, if "comparatively low-paying" means compared to Goldman Sachs managing partners, well...

I wonder if students at the top elite schools are more likely to go into comparatively low-paying jobs like academia, philanthropy, or politics, compared to more students at second tier schools going into high-earning careers.

Politics is not a low-paying job, academia (if you can get tenure) isn't either.

Otherwise I think that this is likely because a lot of these students come from wealthy families.

I wonder if students at the top elite schools are more likely to go into comparatively low-paying jobs like academia, philanthropy, or politics, compared to more students at second tier schools going into high-earning careers. I'd be very interested to see the % in each sector breakdown for differently ranked schools.

If you mimick another person you are following them. They are leading. If you observe a bunch of friends who have strong rapport with each other you can tell which person has the highest status in the group by seeing who leads the body language and who follows.

If you sit in a meeting or university seminar and are bored it can be interesting to just observe how different people are reacting to the body language of each other.