Should You Reverse Any Advice You Hear?

Builds on bravery debates: lots of advice helps some people but the opposite helps others (be harder/easier on yourself; more/less government; follow dreams/be practical). People self-select into groups pushing one side, which mostly just shifts the members' own opinions — and often as a vicious cycle (the already-too-selfish join Objectivism and get more selfish) rather than a support group. The core worry: advice reaches those who need it least (artsy dreamers read follow-your-dreams books; the cautious read Warren Buffett), so Scott frets his own correct posts are 'wrong relative to readers' who already over-weight them. Proposes advice reversal: if there are near-equal groups needing opposite advice AND you self-selected into receiving this advice, consider the opposite.

Quality 73 · Strong. Strong, upper. A clean, memorable, much-applied rationality contribution; the self-selection death-spiral and the 'advice is wrong relative to its audience / reverse any advice you hear' framing are genuinely portable. Held just below Excellent because the headline 'reverse advice' heuristic is borrowed (Yudkowsky/CFAR) — Scott's value-add is the strong self-selection/death-spiral analysis and the checklist.

Claude’s paradigm shift 54 · Moderate. Moderate–Notable (54). The self-selection death-spiral and 'advice reaches those who need it least' framing was a fresh, clarifying synthesis at publication, atop the borrowed reverse-advice heuristic and his own bravery-debates idea.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Minor (2). A cited rationalist heuristic, but its core ('reverse advice') predates Scott; the within-discourse influence is real but not a new durable coinage.