I've had several experiences similar to what Scott describes, of being trapped between two debaters who both had a convincingness that exceeded my ability to discern truth.

I always feel so.

I see a lot of rational sounding arguments from red-pillers, manosphericals, conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians, the ilk. And then I see the counter-arguments from liberals, feminists, leftists and the ilk that pretty much boil down to the other side just being uncompassionate assholes and desperately rationalizing it with arguments. Well, rationalizing is a very universal feature and they sometimes do seem like really selfish people indeed... so I really don't know who to believe.

Or climate change. What little I know about the scientific method says this is NOT how you do science. You don't just make a computer simulation in 1980 or so that would predict oceans boiling away by 2000 and when it fails to happen just tweak it and say this second time now you surely got it right. Yet, pretty much every prestigious scientist supports the "alarmist" side and on the other side I see only marginal, low-status "cranks" - and they are curiously politically motivated. So who do I support?

In such dilemmas, I think the best thing is to figure out what is it your "corrupted hardware" wants to do and do the opposite - do the opposite what your instincts i.e. evolved biases suggest.

Well, no luck. On one side, I see people who are high-status, intellectual, and look really nice and empathic and compassionate. Of course my instincts like that. On the other side, I see people who look brave, tough, critical-minded and creative, plus they seem to be far more historically literate, so basically NRx and libertarians and similar folks give me that kind of "inventor" vibe, which incidentally is also something my instincts like.

I like both sides - and yet, to decide rationally, I should probably choose something I instinctively dislike.