+
+I'm https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XvN2QQpKTuEzgkZHY/?commentId=f8Gour23gShoSyg8g at gender and categorization
+
+picking cherries from a cherry tree
+
+http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/honesty-and-perjury/#Intent_to_inform
+
+https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trying-again-on-fideism
+> I come back to this example less often, because it could get me in trouble, but when people do formal anonymous surveys of IQ scientists, they find that most of them believe different races have different IQs and that a substantial portion of the difference is genetic. I don’t think most New York Times readers would identify this as the scientific consensus. So either the surveys - which are pretty official and published in peer-reviewed journals - have managed to compellingly misrepresent expert consensus, or the impressions people get from the media have, or "expert consensus" is extremely variable and complicated and can’t be reflected by a single number or position.
+
+https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste
\ No newline at end of file