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

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'Eulering,' where complex mathematical arguments are used to refute non-mathematical ideas, potentially leaving those less mathematically inclined unable to respond effectively. He uses the apocryphal story of Diderot and Euler to illustrate this concept. Scott explores the dilemma of whether to dismiss such arguments as sophistry or to accept them at face value, highlighting the trade-off between avoiding mathematical intimidation and maintaining intellectual rigor. He discusses his personal experiences with mathematical arguments in various fields, particularly focusing on statistics in scientific research. Scott proposes a strategy of 'routing around' complex mathematical objections by focusing on the underlying non-mathematical claims and evidence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks a study claiming Victorians were smarter than modern people, showing it's based on flawed data comparison and ignores crucial factors like selection bias and demographics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming Victorians were more intelligent than modern people based on reaction time measurements. He argues the study's conclusion is flawed due to significant selection bias in the Victorian data, which primarily came from wealthy, educated individuals. The modern data, in contrast, was more representative of the general population. Scott points out that the difference in reaction times can be explained by sampling from the top 20% of Victorian society versus a broader modern sample. He also highlights how the study ignores important factors like race and regional variations in IQ, which could further account for the observed differences. Scott concludes by urging readers not to cite this study as evidence for declining intelligence or civilization. Shorter summary