A paradox of naturalism is that it predicts its own weakness as a meme. A naturalistic worldview considers ideas as having both truth value and functional value. Considering the space of all ideas, there does appear to be a correlation between the "truth value" of some bits inside these human computational devices, and the "functional value" of how much these bits are replicated in the next generation. It is hard to imagine how we got to where we currently are without such a correlation. But the idea of naturalism itself, despite being true, appears to decrease the fitness of the human computational devices containing its representation. Instead we have various illusions that limit the damage caused by having an incoherent worldview, while preventing too much deviation from normal reproductive behavior.

On a completely different note, what is your current view of Steve Sailer? I looked in the Gale archives and noticed a few of you discussing his article on New Orleans; you seemed the most willing to evaluate his writing strictly on truth value rather than automatically dismiss it due to its distastefulness. As far as I can tell, his perception of reality is usually accurate. I disagree with some of his practical recommendations (my preferences lean toward the democratic transhumanistic), but I think he's right about the likely consequences of excessive illegal immigration, etc. I am curious if you think differently, and if so, why. I'm also curious about the "unfortunate things about Steve Sailer himself" that Anne referred to, since I have donated money to him recently and would like to know if it would be incorrect to repeat that in the future.