Scott Alexander examines how public predictions are judged over time, using examples like Nostradamus and Fukuyama to illustrate common pitfalls and offer advice on making predictions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the phenomenon of how people's predictions are judged over time, using Nostradamus and Francis Fukuyama as contrasting examples. He discusses how Nostradamus's vague prophecies are often interpreted as accurate in hindsight, while Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis is frequently declared wrong whenever significant events occur. The post then analyzes other public figures' predictions and their reception, before offering advice on how to make predictions that won't damage one's credibility or cause personal misery. Scott concludes by acknowledging that he wants to make more predictions himself, while warning aspiring thought leaders about the challenges of public prediction-making. 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 uses historical data to refute the Reactionary claim that modern society increases war, showing instead that violence has decreased significantly in progressive eras. Longer summary

Scott Alexander rebuts the Reactionary claim that modern society causes increased war and instability. He presents statistical evidence showing that wars and violence have significantly decreased in modern times, especially since World War II. The post examines historical data on war casualties, finding that the most progressive periods in history are also the most peaceful, while periods favored by Reactionaries (like the 1600s) were among the deadliest. Scott argues that even accounting for technological advances in warfare, the past was generally more violent. He also points out that in recent times, wars are mostly limited to less progressive countries. The post concludes that as the world has become more progressive over the past 70 years, conflicts and deaths from conflict have dropped precipitously. Shorter summary