Scott Alexander examines how increased rational debate doesn't always lead to truth, using personal and societal examples, and suggests ways to carefully approach traditions and changes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of asymmetric weapons, which work better for good guys than bad guys, and how sometimes this asymmetry can be reversed. He discusses how increased rational debate and resources don't always lead to truth, using examples like minimum wage debates and personal habits. The post then examines societal-level examples, such as debates about politicians' salaries and early 20th-century socialism. Scott concludes with suggestions on how to approach traditions and changes carefully, emphasizing the importance of understanding before discarding, tolerating unexplained behaviors, and gradually improving on obsolete traditions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander cautions against basing opinions on limited research, using examples from medicine and economics to show how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander warns against relying on a single study or a limited selection of studies to form opinions on complex issues. He illustrates this with examples from medical research and the minimum wage debate, showing how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. The post emphasizes the importance of considering the full body of evidence, including meta-analyses and expert opinions, while also being aware of potential biases in research and reporting. Scott concludes by advocating for skepticism and thorough investigation when evaluating claims backed by scientific studies. Shorter summary