One thing I do with such questions is go meta, i.e. add some uncertainty for P(the tool actually has the right answer)when giving my responses.

Interesting! What's the source for the second paragraph?

I really appreciate this taxonomy and am amazed it has not existed before. Just thought it noteworthy that evolution/"natural selection" was not mentioned as an example (seems best categorized under Process Selection?)

This was helpful to me in better understanding stream entry/identifying good teachers, thank you! Do you have any other suggestions on how non-enlightened individuals might distinguish good teachers from bad, other than your specific examples of meditation centers and Tweets?

I heard "seems like [x] is a crux" at my STEM-focused workplace last week; I'm not aware of the speaker using LW.

one of the most promising young EAs in the country!

Curious, on what metric is this measured?

As a STEM enthusiast, I suspect I would've much more quickly engaged with the Sequences had I first been recommended arbital.com as a gateway to it instead of "read the Sequences" directly.

In your mind, in what ways does "being in the state of kensho 24/7" differ from "enlightenment"?

Got it, thank you! The cases I've noticed have indeed been from (what I believe to be) non-canonical sequences.

Is the idea that

1. your "belief" you're describing is a somehow unupdated ranked calibration with E[Draymond rank|Ben Taylor's opinion] = E[Draymond rank] = ~50, whereas your model (which you consider separate from a true belief) would predict that the random variable "Draymond rank|Ben Taylor's opinion" has mode 22, which is clearly different from your prior of ~50
2. your alief is that Draymond's rank is ~50 while your System 2 level belief is that Draymond's rank is ~22

or some combination of the two?