I"m gonna answer them preliminarily and maybe add more detail later!
1 -To be fair the translation documents are more of a diplomatic step that repeatedly shows up, people want things translated into their language so they can understand and endorse it a lot of times, so this is more focused into the academic integration, but honestly depending on how things progress it gains less and less importance! >Personally< I wouldn't do it (which is why its included as to do, not done, but if necessity arrived haha)
2 - I agree with you for the most part, I think the main virtues are understanding and the capacity to bear responsibility for the consequences, the only issue is that I haven't found any other as reliable way to predict virtuous behavior other then this set of characteristics, and the responsibility that some of these decisions entail are bigger than that, some systems really cannot fail. Maybe it's not feasible to say every practitioner would be like that, but I think at least the bar should be there; I'm also not claiming I fill in all those requirement yet, but Its how the weight of responsibility feels for me. I also miss higher bars, in an environment where it gets increasingly lower in some places
3 - That is a logical question to me really, psychology is just the name of the science of the mind and human behavior; part of the reason this pitch sounds almost like a manifesto is because I feel what is perceived as psychology has lost its meaning (if it ever got a stable one). I've wanted to do something about the world, and if the problem is coordination than behavior is what must be changed, so the meaning comes before the name to me. It also feels like the right egregore to fill and integrate, most sciences are much older and with much more established paradigms, humanities and specially psychology are fields in need of much more maturing to catch up. Ideally we would reach religious and political leaders to bring awareness and problem solving, but I think the ethical and long-term way to do it is p2p propagation in this case, the heart of open memetics: simply because having a guy in a closed room telling our leaders whats right wouldn't change much about the current situation, and so everyone has a shot at participating. That being said, psychology indeed may be a personal bias and I'm open to other candidates, Im not sure where to position psychology then tho. Or if we should integrate this into another more fitting field
Viewing post in Egregore Psychology - Founding a new field
I really like the idea of using this framework as a means to present something cohesive to people who are already in positions of influence. It seems useful to be able to go to religious leaders, trend setters, politicians, youtubers, you name it, and say "Here's how we think culture works, and what your role in it has been. Furthermore, here's how we think you can help heal society." This also opens the opportunity to publicly recognize influential people who are actually operating in bad faith, or under negative influence.