Scott Alexander uses a satirical FAQ about stores to illustrate common objections to new institutions, then explains the purpose and offers heuristics for evaluating such criticisms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical FAQ about buying things from stores, addressing various hypothetical concerns and objections. The post humorously explores common criticisms of new institutions by applying them to the familiar concept of stores. In the final section, Scott explains the purpose of this satire, drawing parallels to similar objections raised against prediction markets and self-service gas stations. He then offers heuristics for evaluating such criticisms and emphasizes the importance of practical implementation over theoretical objections. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines various interpretations of rationality, concluding it might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores different interpretations of rationality and the debate between rationalists and anti-rationalists. He examines rationality as full computation vs. heuristics, explicit computation vs. intuition, and Yudkowsky's definition of 'systematized winning'. The post concludes by suggesting rationality might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. This perspective explains why rationality is often associated with explicit calculation, despite the importance of intuition and heuristics in practical decision-making. The post argues that while intuitive methods may often be effective, the formal study of rationality allows for replication, scaling, and innovation in ways that intuition alone cannot. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the dangers of relying on 'Heuristics That Almost Always Work' through various examples, highlighting their limitations and potential consequences. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Heuristics That Almost Always Work' through various examples, such as a security guard, doctor, futurist, skeptic, interviewer, queen, and weatherman. He argues that while these heuristics are correct 99.9% of the time, they provide no real value and could be replaced by a rock with a simple message. The post highlights the dangers of relying too heavily on such heuristics, including wasted resources on experts, false confidence, and the potential for catastrophic failures when the rare exceptions occur. Scott concludes by noting that those who dismiss rationality often rely on these heuristics themselves, and emphasizes the importance of being aware of the 0.1% of cases where the heuristics fail. Shorter summary

Scott proposes that value differences arise from people crystallizing heuristics at different levels, rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible differences in values. Longer summary

Scott explores the idea that value differences stem from people operating at different levels of a conceptual ladder, from explicit models to emotional experiences to reified essences to endorsed values. He argues that this perspective can help people understand each other better, as differences often arise from where individuals choose to crystallize heuristics rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible value differences. The post discusses various examples of this process, from nutrition to punishment to environmental preservation, and examines factors that influence where people place themselves on this ladder, such as intelligence, education, and personal experience. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander warns against forming strong heuristics based on limited data, using examples from AI research, elections, and campaign strategies to illustrate the pitfalls of this approach. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the dangers of forming strong heuristics based on limited data points. He presents three examples: AI research progress, election predictions, and campaign strategies. In each case, he shows how people formed confident heuristics after observing patterns in just one or two instances, only to be surprised when these heuristics failed. The post argues against treating life events as moral parables and instead advocates for viewing them as individual data points that may not necessarily generalize. Scott uses a mix of statistical reasoning, historical examples, and cultural references to illustrate his points. Shorter summary