A replication of a 2023 neuroscience study on brain entrainment and learning found that the original effect likely doesn't exist, revealing how the study obscured key issues through statistical averaging and highlighting how AI tools are democratizing scientific scrutiny.

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care.

Scott Alexander uses simulations to explain why seemingly counterintuitive arguments against the genetic basis of schizophrenia are misleading.

Scott Alexander argues that describable dating preferences are valuable, despite studies suggesting otherwise, by pointing out flaws in research and emphasizing real-world evidence.

Scott Alexander argues that intelligence is a useful, non-Platonic concept, and that this understanding supports the coherence of AI risk concerns.

Scott Alexander argues that selection bias, while a concern, is not a valid reason to automatically reject amateur online surveys, as professional studies also face similar limitations.

Scott Alexander analyzes ivermectin studies for COVID-19, finding most positive results likely due to methodological flaws, fraud, or confounding by parasitic infections.

A review of Frans de Waal's book on animal cognition, discussing its insights into animal intelligence, scientific methodology, and the evolutionary basis of cognition.

Scott Alexander uses three fictional stories to illustrate principles of non-empirical scientific reasoning, ultimately applying them to support the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Scott Alexander critiques a misreported study on trigger warnings, highlighting its flaws and limited relevance to the broader debate on their use in colleges.

Scott Alexander reviews a paper that claims to solve the Fermi Paradox by using probability distributions instead of point estimates in Drake Equation calculations.

Scott Alexander examines why compelling but unlikely stories on large internet platforms are probably lies, despite our reluctance to believe so.

Scott Alexander examines a pseudoscientific claim about the Great Pyramid of Giza to illustrate how coincidences can appear more significant than they are, relating this to challenges in evaluating scientific studies.

The post deconstructs a growth mindset study, revealing that its positive claims in the abstract are not supported by the actual data, demonstrating the importance of critical analysis of scientific papers.

Scott Alexander analyzes two conflicting studies on gender bias in STEM hiring, exploring reasons for their contradictory results and the challenges in reaching a definitive conclusion.

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.

Scott Alexander criticizes psychological studies that confuse short-term reactions with long-term effects, using examples from video game violence research, media stereotype studies, and parenting research.

Scott Alexander shares a diverse collection of links on topics ranging from politics and economics to scientific studies, offering brief commentaries and critiques.

Scott Alexander defends the validity of intelligence and IQ tests by comparing them to comas and the Glasgow Coma Scale in medicine.

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Eulering' and strategies for dealing with complex mathematical arguments in non-mathematical debates.

Scott Alexander critiques a meta-analysis supporting psychic phenomena to illustrate flaws in scientific methodology and meta-analysis.

Scott Alexander reflects on five years of Less Wrong, highlighting the community's intellectual progress in various areas of rationality and philosophy.