The review examines arguments for increased government secrecy, suggesting that transparency may lead to negative outcomes and that a return to more opaque legislative processes could be beneficial. Longer summary

This book review examines Brian Kogelmann's argument for increased secrecy in government, particularly in legislative processes. The author argues that transparency, while intuitively appealing, can lead to negative outcomes such as increased influence of special interest groups and political grandstanding. The review explores the historical context, theoretical justifications, and potential drawbacks of secret deliberation, ultimately suggesting that a return to more opaque legislative processes could improve political outcomes. Shorter summary

A detailed review of Michael Shellenberger's 'San Fransicko', examining its critiques of San Francisco's progressive policies on homelessness, drugs, and crime. Longer summary

This post reviews Michael Shellenberger's book 'San Fransicko', which criticizes progressive policies on homelessness, drug addiction, and crime in San Francisco. The review examines key claims in the book, fact-checking statistics and comparing them to other sources. While finding some of Shellenberger's criticisms valid, the review also points out areas where the book presents a one-sided narrative or misrepresents data. Overall, the reviewer sees the book as a flawed but thought-provoking critique of San Francisco's approach to urban problems. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines Matt Yglesias's public predictions and discusses the implications for evaluating pundits and the future of prediction-based journalism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Matt Yglesias's recent foray into making public predictions, a practice uncommon among pundits. He compares Yglesias's predictions to those on Metaculus and reflects on the broader implications for journalism and punditry. Scott explores the challenges of fairly evaluating pundits based on predictions, the artificiality of predetermined prediction sets, and the disconnect between prediction accuracy and valuable commentary. He suggests that pundits should make predictions directly related to their claims and proposes using prediction markets as a benchmark for pundit performance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Ezra Klein's 'Why We're Polarized', finding it asks important questions about political polarization but provides few clear answers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Ezra Klein's book 'Why We're Polarized', which examines the historical and structural reasons for increasing political polarization in the United States. The book argues that the realignment of the Dixiecrats from Democrat to Republican in the 1960s allowed natural polarization to occur. Klein discusses factors like identity alignment, nationalization of politics, and negative partisanship as drivers of polarization. Scott finds some of Klein's arguments unconvincing, particularly regarding Republicans, and wishes for more international comparisons. He concludes that while the book asks important questions about polarization as a key political problem, it doesn't provide many clear answers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander details the logistics of his new blog on Substack, including subscription options and content plans, while addressing reader concerns. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explains his transition to Substack, addressing concerns about the platform and discussing the logistics of his new blog. He outlines the subscription model, emphasizing that most content will remain free but subscribers will get some extra benefits. Scott also touches on his plans for a new medical practice, his stance on publicity, and updates on previous commitments like advertising refunds and the book review contest. Shorter summary