Thanks for the explanation!

So it would be epistemically suboptimal to be "immune to" the outputs of the advertising.

I get that you are saying that ads convey useful information. It seems to me, though, that instead of relying on ads for this information, I could get the same information just as easily by observing people. 

Are there any particular situations where it is especially useful to pay attention to ads for this kind of group signalling information?

(I gather that hightops and brogues are types of shoes. I had to look them up...)

1. I still do not understand it. Could I ask you to please rephrase the sentence "However, a lot of people..." so it expresses what you intended to say, as exactly as reasonably possible?
2. Are you saying that no one genuinely agrees with Peter Singer's conclusion (that you should sacrifice your own convenience to save a stranger)? And that everyone who claims to agree with Singer either (1) lies or (2) is too stupid to know their own beliefs?

However, a lot of people who don't get caught with Singer's thought experiment, and don't recognize the inconsistency with their previously held beliefs.

This sentence is not completely grammatical. It looks like the result of an editing mistake. I would love to know exactly what you intended to say here.

Smarter and more honest inductees will report that, "I care about having nice things for myself, and then my friends and family, much more than a random child," leave the room muttering, "cult," and not show up to the next EA reading club.

Could you please elaborate on why you think "smarter and more honest" people will give this answer?

Let me ask you just one question: Do you truly want to learn to be more rational?

Please give me a direct answer to this.

The motivation, after the double edit, is clearly to express suprise after connecting the dots and to enumerate it…

Sure, but do you need to express all your emotions?

In my experience (as a rough guideline), when I do something, it is either because I want to achieve some goal, or because I am in the grip of some subconscious impulse. The latter is something I want to catch and notice as often as I can, in order to learn to be more conscious and more rational as much of the time as possible.

Since you read and post on LessWrong, I assume that you want to learn to be more rational. Am I right?

I may have been expressing myself too vaguely. What I have been trying to say is this: I think that when you write these posts, you are in the grip of subconscious urges - presumably an urge to defend yourself and "win fights" in order to secure your social status. I am trying to convince you that you can train and improve your own rationality by introspecting more about why you do the things you do.

I wrote it in the most straightforward and direct manner possible? 

Is this a question? Or are you just defending yourself again?

May I ask what your motivation was when you wrote and published this post of yours? 

Were you trying to learn something? Or were you trying to teach me something? Or were you just responding to the knee-jerk impulse to win a fight online?

My post above was an attempt to teach you something. I hope that this wording does not come off as condescending; it is not meant as such. I am here on LessWrong primarily to learn. As such, I appreciate it when someone genuinely tries to teach me something. I hope that you will take it in the same spirit.

I think your first post above had some flaws in terms of rationality. I think your follow-up is even less rational.

Am I making sense? I might not be. I can try to be clearer, but only if you truly want to know what I am trying to say.

I am the person that caused Duncan to crystallize the concept of 'emotionally tall' discussed here 

Upvoted for this link, which I found valuable.

I know what you mean, of course, but it is funny that you use Jesus as an example of someone unlikely to be banned when, historically, Jesus was in fact "banned". :)

Edit: I seem to have attracted 4 random downvoters who appear too ashamed to even indicate a rationale. Which seems to indicate my comment touches upon something of substance.

This is not a strong argument. It is equally plausible that 4+ people think your post is simply bad and not worth the effort to criticize.

This is not meant as an attack on you, but I do think your post here is guilty of some of the same misbehaviour that the OP explains.

Is it that fun, though? Are surviving mountaineers usually exceptionally happy people? Does the fun of successfully climbing mountains make up for the risk of death? I suspect it does not.