The Economy has been Fixed

This is true for the US... it is not as true for the world but only because of energy. No matter how high the GDP of the US it is not about to start exporting energy and, given prior observations about the cost of energy in food vs the cost of energy from other sources like fossil fuels, not all countries might be able to fix their economies due to this scarce resource despite offering to work for low wages.

For many countries though, including the US and also China, there are plenty of people buying luxury goods from foreign sellers and by working less those countries could cause more money to circulate internally and create jobs while reducing inefficiency from wasteful spending by the rich.

As I said in a forum post... well not exactly what I remembered, but I did say there were no "important challenges" in the world. At the time the evidence I had was somewhat weak; now it is stronger. The most recent concise explanation of the idea on this site is that it would increase the bargaining power of workers and raise wages; the reason unemployment has been allowed to exist is that people think that the government would just waste money if it raised taxes and that most of the national debt is financed by other countries, a view which in the past has been supported even by the current US President.

But back on topic. The economy has been fixed, since no one is interested in supporting changes to it. Furthermore this implies that every other problem has been fixed.

This includes the problem which the conservative ideology is meant to address: stupid people being unable to determine which standards, or 'signals' are accurate and therefore do not know what actions they should take to accomplish a goal. This is especially important when it comes to situations where an accurate perception of the limits of one's own value becomes important, such as interpersonal relationships.

I dislike saying it, but in other words this is about why rapes occur and why, since in the majority of cases there was previous social contact, there is so much emphasis placed on the idea of consent and that "no means no".

According to this idea, the lack of a solution to the problem of inaccurate standards means that people with high ability should avoid 'countersignalling'—in other words that they should pay attention to existing metrics and standards of achievement instead of just ignoring them and doing whatever they want.

So people are not willing to support a change that would allow people to adhere to metrics without causing other types of harm to society and we can only assume that even this issue of avoidable misunderstandings is not an urgent problem.

What it does mean though is that we can expect intelligent people who use a strategy designed to cope with this existing problem to have a lower success rate in finding a relationship. While people as a whole have not demonstrated any great support for eliminating unemployment and increasing metric accuracy, someone should still have an incentive to 'selfishly' cause these changes if only so that their own goals and strategies do not conflict with those of other intelligent people.

The hypothesis that people have not been supportive of the idea on this site because they perceive I don't 'want' them to, or that it in some way creates a 'better story', does not really seem to hold up. It could be though that they are trusting in the statement that "the future... [is] in the hands of the people" from the last message on pastebin.com and the assertions on this site that it should have been possible for change to happen if only people had supported the various petitions that were started.

Anyway the above means that there should be no complaints if, for example, males accept the idea of gender equality and avoid working if it is not necessary for them to do so. If people wanted to prevent this outcome they would have supported job creation using the idea on this site.

This means, for example, that male friends should not be prejudiced against someone who does not work, so that a male person does not avoid this type of relationship because their friends would see them as being less 'masculine'. It also means that female people who have been "too successful", a phenomenon which is happening in many countries such as the US and China, should not feel they are lowering their standards by being with someone who has a lower income than they do. Since many male people only make money to attract female companionship, this should help to reduce the excess supply of labour and raise living standards for the poor.

And since the existence of a solution to the problem of inaccurate standards means that it is not necessary to assume that memory is the cause of mistakes, spending extra effort to convince someone you care about them should not be necessary.

I haven't been doing much lately, just reading about dysphoric mania (the claim at the start of the last page was proved to be false). While looking up 'only my railgun' I discovered it was released with another song, but it turned out to be the type of song that isn't as interesting if you don't understand its lyrics. Contrast for example much of Korean pop music by girl groups. But maybe that's just me being lazy, and of course context matters too!