[throway98752343]

Good of you to offer concrete examples. I don't mean these as ad hominems since I don't know you, more as counter examples:

> I've shared the results of my IQ tests (145-160+)

I wonder if the part of the population with <100 IQs are similarly open with their results.

> I speed when conditions let that be safe.

Admitting to breaking the law is an excuse for higher insurance premiums and for the police to hassle you.

> I suffer depression

This is one of the few relatively "safe" mental health conditions to announce. Who's lining up to hire someone who's openly struggling with addiction or has psychopathy?

> I'm very honest and want that in my closest relationships

Let's say your partner gets served ads about how your single, attractive co-worker has been googling you late at night, how your location histories have significant overlap, and by clicking the ad they can find out more. Not everyone will get suspicious, but some people definitely will click.

~~~

It would be great if we could all be open like you say you are, but society isn't even close to ready for that. Any rapid transition (like wide-scale encryption breaks) would be traumatic on so many levels.

[erikerikson]

You have my gratitude for this comment. I don't take it as ad hominem at all but rather excellent challenges and realities that move the conversation forward. These are good examples of the privilege I mentioned and I appreciate them being raised.

I agree that there is a long way to go before pervasive feelings of safety will exist. You also seem right that the transition, if we choose it, will more positively be consensual and gradual. This conversation seems to be often spoken of with binary models. Further, the preference clusters are implied to be in opposition so I hoped to offer a counter to that in case it might have a positive effect over the long term.