Well, one very obvious way in which No. 2 is true is that the overwhelming majority of people do not know about things like Photofeeler or Mate, can not infere that it must exist and thus do not do research to find it. Also it is not trivial to distinguish if a given tool / advice is any good.
Another aspect is that your assertion that there is little dating advice out there is just wrong. Just Google “Pick Up” or PUA.
But this probably is only a partial explanation.
Um, no, we cannot colonise the stars with current tech. What a surprise! We cannot even colonise mars, antarctica or the ocean floor.
Of course you need to solve bottom up manufacturing (nanotech or some functional eqivalent) first, making you independent from eco system services, agricultural food production, long supply chains and the like. This also vastly reduces radiation problems and probably solves ageing. Then you have a fair chance.
So yes, if we wreck earth the stars are not plan B, we need to get our shit together first.
If at this point there is still a reason to send canned monkeys is a completely different question.
While this post is meant as a parody / reductio, I think the idea that “there is no such thing as strength” is not entirely invalid. This has of course nothing to do with strength being culturally constructed or some such nonsense but with “strength”—as it is used colloquially- being highly multidimensional.
Thus there is no unambiguous way to say my strenght is [number] [unit]. You can of course devise a strenght test and define a strength quotient as the output of this test. And if the test is any good of course this strength quotient will corelate with different abilities and outcomes such as digging ditches or carrying stones or the probability of having back pain. But this does not mean that “your strenght” as measured by the strenght test behaves like a physical unit.
It may for example (depending on the exact nature of the test) not be meaningful to ask how a non human like an ant or a zebra or an excavator would rate on the test for example because the test may involve handling dumbbells (what neither ant nor zebra can) or involve endurance tests (what the excavator can do until the fuel tank is empty or not at all). I hope the parallel to AI is obvious. On the other hand if I do measure a dimension of strength this problem goes away. If muscle x at max tension applies a torque of y to joint z this does behave as a physical unit and can easily be applied to any system with joints, be it ant, zebra or excavator.
Furthermore the strength test is to a certain degree arbitrary. You could do a slightly different test with slightly different correlations and stil call it “strength”. This is not the case with a single dimension of strength. That muscle x at max tension does apply a torque of y to joint z is an objective fact about the world which can be ascertatined with a host of different methods all of which will yield the same result (at least theoretically).
Concerning intelligence we unfortunately do not know the onedimensional subcomponents. I think this is the propper steelman for “there is no such thing as intelligence”.
Problem is that this formalisation is probably bullshit. It looks a bit like a video game where you generate “research points” for AGI and/or FAI. Research IRL does not work like that. You need certain key insights for AGI and a different set for FAI if some insights are shared among both sets (they probably are) the above model does not work any longer.
Further problem: How do you quantify G and F? A mathematical modell with variables you can’t quantify is of um very limited use (or should I say ornamentation?).
Huh after copying the link to my own post, it works! The link in the above post still does not. Weird!
I would be VERY interested in reading that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12344/pdf paper. Unfortunately the link does not work for me (page not found).
Thinking about it from this direction you are probably correct in doing ths via facebook.