{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "I seem to have a Thing of throwing off-hand jokes that later are validated surprisingly well by empirical data, and this time...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/145045534058/", "html": "

reasonableapproximation:

\n\n

house-carpenter:

\n\n

shkreli-for-president:

\n\n

hylleddin:

\n
\n

pirozhok-s-kapustoj:

\n
\n

theungrumpablegrinch:

\n
\n

ozylikes:

\n
\n

socialjusticemunchkin:

\n
\n

socialjusticemunchkin:

\n
\n

I seem to have a Thing of throwing off-hand jokes that later are validated surprisingly well by empirical data, and this time it\u2019s \u201cas queer as a women\u2019s college\u201d

\n\n

Because I\u2019m screwing around in the diaspora survey results for fun and wow this fits all the unlikely but totally true stereotypes

\n\n

like, right now I\u2019m googling the statistics on lesbianity and transgenderism in Mount Holyoke because holy shit our hardest core might actually give them a run for their money in queerness

\n
\n

So, the results are in, and\u2026

\n\n

yes.

\n\n

I used this data and the four big clusters with useful results (0, 1, 3 and 6) turned out pretty remarkable.

\n\n

Cluster 0 seems relatively unremarkable; its most distinctive characteristic was skipping the cultural questions and all in all less active answering

\n\n

6 is roughly identical to 0 in other questions; it has some slight exposure to the culture but seems to be mostly made of \u201cregular people\u201d who somehow ended up on the survey, and by \u201cregular\u201d I mean \u201cstill pretty niche but not thoroughly corrupted\u201d; almost half had read Ender\u2019s Game and a third are regulars of SSC and that\u2019s about it. I\u2019m calling the two of them the \u201cordinarys\u201d

\n\n

Cluster 3 I\u2019m naming \u201crationalist-adjacent\u201d because they share a lot of characteristics but aren\u2019t neck deep in the memeplex unlike\u2026

\n\n

Cluster 1 which is obviously \u201cyudkowskians\u201d because they are basically walking stereotypes

\n\n

And by stereotypes I mean things like:

\n\n

Half the women are trans (8% to 9% and most of the enbies (9% in total) are amab as well); r-adjacents have relatively low numbers of trans women but the same amount of enbies, and a quarter is afab instead of 12% of the yudkowskians. But both have more women than the ordinarys, and yudkowskians\u2019 trans team is very strong and makes a valiant effort in closing the gender gap even if the r-adjacents seize a narrow victory in the numbers game.

\n\n

More people are poly than mono, and heterosexuals are only barely a majority (59% while 29% are bi; the rationalist-adjacents are very close too with 62% and 23% while the ordinarys have 76-78% and 12-14%; homosexuality is relatively constant at 3-5%)

\n\n

9% of both the yudkowskians and r-adjacents are asexual, compared to 5% of the ordinarys

\n\n

Half of them work with computers and nobody is going to believe those alleged IQ scores never ever (146, compared to a consistent 136-138 for the rest); they are also the most likely to have only a high school degree while the other groups (especially r-adjacents) beat them in the other education categories

\n\n

Agnosticism is hilariously unpopular (3% compared to 11-16% for the rest) and they are extremely jewish

\n\n

Basically everyone reads SSC, and they are the biggest readers of everything else on the list as well (except Xenosystems, where the r-adjacents take the first place in regulars and sometimes-readers)

\n\n

The closer one is to the hard core of the memeplex, the less conservative (by a significant amount) and the more libertarian (to some degree but not as massively) one is, but neither of them can hold a candle to the massive correlation between exposure to Yudkowsky\u2019s writings and being a trans woman (can\u2019t bother to do the calculations but the connection is absurdly strong)

\n\n

So this data basically says that the archetypical rationalist is:

\n\n
  • 21-25 years old
    • \n
  • jewish
    • \n
  • trans woman (probably kind of non-binary-ish on some level, but transitioning with hormones)
    • \n
  • polyamorous
    • \n
  • gray-asexual
    • \n
  • bisexual
    • \n
  • an absurdly gifted child with the specific kind of badbrains which is varyingly diagnosed as autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression, or most likely some combination of them
    • \n
  • studies computer science
    • \n
  • politically left-libertarian
    • \n
  • geeks out on all kinds of weird nerd stuff
    • \n
  • has read all of: Three Worlds Collide, HPMoR, The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant
    • \n
  • a regular SSC reader
    • \n

to calculate your \u201chow stereotypical rationalist am I\u201d score: 1 point for fully matching each, \u00bd points for getting close; mine is 10/12

\n
\n

eight

\n\n

what kind of failure rationalist am I

\n
\n

9.5, giving myself half a point for being amab agender.

\n

I am amused by these results.

\n
\n

7, if i count as jewish as a patrilinear jew
i need to step up my game

\n
\n

9.5/12, not a huge surprise

\n
\n\n

4/12 lol

\n\n

3/12, beat you

\n\n

One and four halves.

\n\n

3 ½
Used to would have been 5 3/2
Used to wanted to have been 10 2/2

It gets better

"}