Google define:'s loli as -

• Abbreviation of lolita
• Japanese term for Lolita, which means young, pre-teen girls.

Google define:'s lolita as -

• a sexually precocious young girl
• In the marketing of legal pornography, lolita is used to refer to a neotenic female, frequently one who has only recently reached the age of consent, or appears to be younger than the age of consent. Usually overlaps with 'barely legal'.

Loli means actual preteen girls.

(See also)

However, I suspect based on my anecdotal experience that educated people might be worse than the general public.

That wouldn't surprise me. Ignorance of bad information can be a good thing. There are political reasons to neglect genetic influence (easier to blame people while avoiding charges of racism and sexism). There are are also ideological motivations for such a preference (see pjeby's emphasis on learned responses rather than genetic influences).

Communist countries game GDP by getting people to produce large quantities of worthless goods (like gigantic nails).

At least, that is the cover story that Naily uses to hide his tracks. Clippy, start taking notes!

I think the main problem is that humans tend not to engage in financial transactions with non-humans. (Yes, you could cite "corporations" as a counterexample, but those have a human behind them.)

This is very possible. Many actual humans have reason to pointedly neglect their status as an 'actual human' for the purposes of making some financial transactions. Signals of 'actual humanness' such as fingerprints and the use of traceable identification are particularly neglected.

This sounds intriguing. Please provide more information about how I can interface with Earth's financial system despite my status.

Yes, please do. It is the sort of information that can be useful far beyond the Clippy persona.

The impact of genetics on behaviour is another example. Most of the educated people I know are ultra-behaviorists, so if I see somebody argue that genes matter (but aren't everything), they definitely get brownie points. Especially since such a view tends to be seen as vaguely quasi-racist.

Are educated people really that badly informed? I would believe it but sometimes I overestimate how much my own knowledge is representative.

Most people on this supposedly rationalist site don't even bother looking at the data when it comes to Soviet Union - they get instant emotional reaction.

How exactly have you determined the instant emotional reaction of most of the people on this site in response to the Soviet Union? I haven't seen most people even comment on the subject, much less display obvious evidence emotional involvement.

Did you actually think through your estimates of soviet-emotionalism in the population or is this a case of "the pot calling a non representative sample of kettles black"?

Tim's point is that things that you learn while on a specific substance (and so in a specific brain state) are actually more accessible while in that same state. So if you study without caffeine then perform with caffeine you don't access the memories as well as if you had studied with caffeine too. The reverse applies as well. As you say, the focus benefit you get probably gives you a net benefit from the caffeine regardless but state specific learning is worth considering.