Scott Alexander examines whether psychiatric conditions result from evolutionary failures or tradeoffs, proposing that most disorders involve a combination of both. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the nature of psychiatric conditions, discussing whether they result from evolutionary failures or tradeoffs. He presents evidence for both hypotheses, noting that recent research favors the failure hypothesis. However, he argues that some conditions likely involve both failures and tradeoffs. He uses analogies from justice systems and nuclear war scenarios to illustrate how failures and tradeoffs can interact. The post concludes by suggesting that most psychiatric disorders exist on a spectrum from mostly-tradeoff to mostly-failure, and critiques the neurodiversity movement's blanket statements about conditions like autism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, and how this relates to ideas of desert and justice, sometimes conflicting with utilitarian calculations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, using three examples: an antidepressant with potential for abuse, a sexual harasser in a community, and basic income recipients who choose not to work. He explores how this concept relates to ideas of desert and justice, and how it sometimes conflicts with utilitarian calculations. The post grapples with the tension between utilitarian outcomes and the intuition that people who make bad choices should face the consequences, even if those consequences might be disproportionate to their actions. Scott considers various ways to reconcile or understand this tension, including viewing it as a misfiring heuristic, a revealed preference issue, or a necessary part of maintaining rule-based systems. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of one-sided tradeoffs, using examples from college admissions to life hacks, and suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains in various decisions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of one-sided tradeoffs using college admissions as a starting point. He explains how most decisions involve tradeoffs between different qualities, but suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains. These include insider trading (having unique knowledge), bias compensation (exploiting others' biases), and comparative advantage (specializing in a specific area). He applies this framework to policy debates, life hacks, and personal decisions, arguing that understanding these concepts can help identify opportunities where one can gain benefits without significant downsides. The post concludes with examples like considering nootropics if one isn't afraid of taking drugs, or buying houses on streets with rude names for a discount. Shorter summary