Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest and reviews all entries, praising their strengths and noting their impact on readers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. The winning entry is about calorie restriction and aging by Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese, with a close second on the ethics of eating meat by David G and Froolow. Scott praises both entries for their different strengths: the calorie restriction piece for its focused approach on a factual question, and the meat ethics piece for its comprehensive review of arguments. He notes that the meat ethics collaboration had a significant impact on readers' eating habits. Scott then briefly reviews the other entries, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. He concludes by explaining the prize distribution and his decision not to run the contest next year, citing various challenges. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander asks readers to vote for their favorite among eight posted adversarial collaborations, with prizes for the top two. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces that all eight adversarial collaborations have been posted and provides a link to the full list. He invites readers who have read all the collaborations to vote for their favorite using a provided link. Scott explains that this year, the winner will be decided by popular vote, with $2000 going to first place and $500 to second place. He concludes by thanking all participants, readers, and voters. Shorter summary

An adversarial collaboration in verse examines Christmas, concluding that despite historical inaccuracies and economic inefficiencies, its social benefits are worthwhile. Longer summary

This adversarial collaboration between Cindy Lou Who and the Grinch examines the merits and drawbacks of Christmas. They discuss the historical inaccuracies of Jesus' birthdate, the myth of Santa Claus, and the economic inefficiencies of gift-giving. Despite these issues, they conclude that the social and emotional benefits of the holiday outweigh the negatives. The collaboration is written in rhyming verse, maintaining a lighthearted tone while addressing serious topics. Shorter summary

The post argues that automation and AI are unlikely to cause a sustained economic crisis, as new jobs will be created to replace those automated, though the benefits may primarily go to capital owners. Longer summary

This post discusses the potential economic impact of automation and AI, addressing concerns about job displacement and economic crisis. The authors argue that while automation will continue to change the job market, it is unlikely to lead to a sustained economic crisis in the foreseeable future. They examine historical trends in employment, current technological capabilities, and economic theories to support their argument. The post concludes that new jobs will continue to be created as old ones are automated, maintaining overall employment levels, though the benefits of automation may flow primarily to capital owners. Shorter summary

Two authors debate when abortion becomes morally wrong, presenting arguments for conception vs. fetal viability as the ethical cutoff point. Longer summary

This post is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where two authors with differing views on abortion debate when during fetal development abortion becomes morally wrong. The authors first review data on abortion rates, pregnancy risks, and socioeconomic impacts. Icerun argues that abortion becomes wrong at conception based on the 'Future Like Ours' argument, while BlockofNihilism contends it's acceptable until fetal viability or minimal neurological activity. They present their arguments, rebut each other's positions, and ultimately reach different conclusions while agreeing on the importance of reducing abortion need through better support systems. Shorter summary

A vegetarian and meat-eater collaborate to analyze the impacts of eating meat, concluding that reduced consumption is beneficial but not as clear-cut as some might think. Longer summary

This post is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where a vegetarian and a meat-eater investigate the ethical, health, and environmental impacts of eating meat. They explore animal consciousness, factory farming conditions, human happiness set points, health outcomes, environmental effects, and costs of switching diets. They conclude that reducing meat consumption, especially chicken, is beneficial overall, but the case is not as strong as some vegetarians might assume. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander apologizes for changing an essay title about circumcision, which caused confusion about its content, and asks readers to consider the original title when voting. Longer summary

Scott Alexander apologizes for changing the title of an essay on circumcision from 'Circumcision: Harms, Benefits, Ethics' to 'Is Circumcision Ethical?'. He explains that he wanted to maintain consistency in the format of titles, but this change caused confusion as it didn't accurately reflect the essay's content, which focused on harms and benefits as much as ethics. He asks readers to consider the original title when voting and invites other authors to provide feedback if they're unhappy with how he's phrased their titles. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents the eight entries for the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, explaining the concept and announcing a future reader vote. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the entries for the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. He explains that adversarial collaboration involves two people with opposing views on a controversial issue working together to present a unified summary of evidence and implications. Eight teams submitted entries on various topics, ranging from infant circumcision to the significance of spiritual experiences. Scott provides links to each entry and mentions that readers will vote for their favorite collaboration at the end of two weeks, with the winners receiving $2500 in prize money. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces that the adversarial collaboration contest will proceed, lists the registered teams, and introduces a new rule for proposing topics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides an update on the adversarial collaboration contest he previously announced. He lists seven teams that have registered so far, covering topics such as circumcision, incarceration, the simulation argument, abortion, critical learning periods, and eating meat. With more than five teams registered, Scott confirms that the contest will officially take place. He invites others to form teams in the comment section, with the caveat that only people with usernames A-M can propose topics, while those with names N-Z must accept existing proposals. This rule is an experiment to address the issue of participants preferring to propose their own topics rather than accepting others'. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the second Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where people with opposing views collaborate on essays about controversial topics for prizes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the second annual Adversarial Collaboration Contest on his blog. The contest encourages people with opposing views to collaborate on a balanced summary of evidence on a controversial topic. Participants form teams of two, write an essay together, and can win prize money. The post outlines the contest rules, including essay requirements, submission process, and judging criteria. Scott provides examples from the previous year's contest and explains how to find a collaboration partner through the blog's comments section. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces winners of the adversarial collaboration contest and shares participant feedback, while reflecting on potential issues with the format. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the adversarial collaboration contest, with prizes awarded for collaborations on education, transgender children, vaccination, and Islam's compatibility with democracy. He shares detailed feedback from the collaborators on their experiences, including initial positions, how much their views shifted, and advice for future participants. Scott then reflects on some concerns raised by the process, such as collaborators avoiding core disagreements or inadvertently legitimizing fringe views. Despite these issues, he expresses interest in continuing to promote the format and calls for ideas to improve it. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces four adversarial collaboration contest entries to be published over the week, with a subsequent reader vote to determine the $1000 prize winner. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the publication of four entries from the adversarial collaboration contest. These collaborations involve two people with opposing views on a controversial topic working together to present a unified summary of evidence and implications. The four entries cover topics such as the US education system's service to advanced students, Islam's compatibility with liberal democracy, mandatory childhood vaccination, and transitioning for transgender children. Scott will post one entry per day and then open a poll for readers to vote on their favorite, with his own vote counting for 5% of the total. The winning entry will receive a $1000 prize, funded by Patreon donations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander provides instructions for participants to connect, register for the adversarial collaboration contest, and mentions potential additional prizes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander is following up on his previous post about an adversarial collaboration contest. He encourages participants from the last thread to connect with potential partners and finalize their agreements. Scott announces he will post two comments: one for coordination to help participants exchange contact information, and another for official contest registration. He asks teams who have formed to register either in the comments or by email. Scott also mentions that additional prize money has been offered, which he's considering using for a prize for the best post-contest reflection on the collaboration process. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a contest for adversarial collaborations, where two people with opposing views on a topic work together to write a balanced summary of the evidence. The goal is to provide readers with a fair assessment of controversial issues. Scott offers a $1000 prize for the best collaboration, with potential for a $250 second-place prize. He outlines rules for the contest, including writing as a united front, coming to a unified conclusion, and allowing publication on Slate Star Codex. The post encourages participants to find collaborators in the comments section and suggests topics could range from political issues to medicine, history, or religion. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques two articles arguing that facts and logic are ineffective in changing people's minds, especially regarding political issues. He contends that true debate, following specific conditions he outlines, is rarely attempted and could be more effective than assumed. He suggests that collaborative truth-seeking and adversarial collaborations could be powerful tools for the media. Alexander argues that logical debate is an asymmetric weapon favoring truth, unlike rhetoric or violence which can be used equally by all sides. He concludes that while improving debate quality is a slow process, it's necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Shorter summary