[ Please read the OP before voting. Special voting rules apply.]

MWI is wrong, and relational QM is right.

Physicalism is wrong, because of the mind body problem, and other considerations, and dual aspect neutral monism is right.

STEM types are too quick to reject ethical Objectivism. Moreover moral subjectivism is horribly wrong. Don't know what the right answer is, but it could be some kind of Kantianism or Contractarianism.

Arguing to win is good, or to be precise, it largely coincides with truth seeking,

There is no kind of smart that makes you uniformly good at everything.

Even though philosophy has no established body of facts, it is possible to be bad at philosophy and make mistakes in it. Scientists who try to solve longstanding philosophical problems in their lunch breaks end up making fools of themselves. Philosophy is not broken science.

A physicalistically respectable form of free will is defensible.

Bayes is oversold, Quantifying  what you haven't first understood is pointless. Being a good rationalist at the day to day level has a lot to do with  noticing your own biases, and with emotional maturity, than mental arithmetic.

MIRI hasn't made a strong case for AI dangers.

The standard theism/atheism debate is stale, broken and pointless..people who cant understand metaphysics arguing with people who believe it but cant articulate it.

All epistemological positions boil down to fundamental uproveable, intuitions. Empiricism doesn't escape betause it is based on the intuition that if you can see something, it is really there. STEM types have an overly optimistic view of their existed8logo, because they are accelerated out of worrying about fundamental issues.

Rationality is more than one thing.