Scott examines claims that political parties should focus on base turnout rather than appealing to moderates, finding evidence that extreme candidates decrease turnout and swing voters matter. Longer summary

This post analyzes the claim that political parties should focus on turning out their base rather than appealing to moderates. Scott examines research and data on voter behavior, finding that extreme candidates tend to decrease turnout for their own party and that swing voters can be decisive in close elections. He concludes that the evidence does not support the 'win-by-extremism-turning-out-the-base' argument. While acknowledging that non-centrist candidates like Trump can win, Scott argues this is by appealing to new coalitions rather than just moving to ideological extremes. The post evaluates academic studies, exit polls, and analysis by political commentators to reach these conclusions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Republicans' failure to achieve smaller government despite holding power contributes to increased polarization and the election of more extreme candidates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a factor contributing to increased polarization among Republicans. He argues that despite Republican control of various levels of government, they have failed to achieve their stated goals of smaller government, fewer regulations, and a reduced welfare state. Scott presents graphs showing growth in government spending, regulations, and welfare spending over time. He suggests this failure is due to secular trends that make everything more expensive, requiring more government spending and regulation. However, Republican voters, unaware of these underlying factors, perceive this as betrayal by their elected officials. This leads to a cycle of electing increasingly extreme candidates who promise to be 'real' Republicans, resulting in hyperpartisanship and refusal to compromise. Scott notes that this is a general issue when people have unrealistic expectations, leading to rejection of existing governments in favor of extremism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that accusations of Trump being an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are exaggerated and harmful, and calls for more measured criticism of Trump's actual flaws. Longer summary

In this post, Scott Alexander argues that accusations of racism and white supremacy against Donald Trump and his supporters are exaggerated and harmful. He contends that while Trump has said and done problematic things, claims that he is an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are not supported by evidence. Alexander reviews various arguments about Trump's alleged racism and rebuts them, citing statistics and providing context. He argues that treating Trump as uniquely racist compared to past presidents is inaccurate and counterproductive. The post ends with a call to stop 'crying wolf' about racism, as it causes unnecessary fear and may desensitize people to real instances of racism in the future. Alexander makes several predictions about what will happen under a Trump presidency to back up his argument. Shorter summary

A Links post presenting various interesting news and studies from different fields, with brief commentary on each item. Longer summary

This is a Links post that presents a collection of interesting news, studies, and articles from various fields. The post covers topics ranging from scientific research and academic policy to economics and social issues. It includes studies on ADHD diagnosis, income inequality, neighborhood effects, and discussion of various cultural and political events. The tone is casual and informative, with Scott providing brief commentary and connecting different ideas throughout. Shorter summary

Scott shares a diverse collection of interesting links spanning science, history, and current events, with commentary on research methodologies and unexpected findings. Longer summary

A collection of interesting links and studies across various topics. The post covers scientific studies (like ego depletion and male variability), historical curiosities (like Russian Somalia and Project Oilsand), current events (Jeremy Corbyn's election), and various social and political developments. Scott presents each item with brief commentary, often highlighting interesting methodologies or unexpected findings. The post maintains a mix of serious academic content and more lighthearted observations, frequently noting clever research designs or counterintuitive findings. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes misleading media reports on drug testing welfare recipients, showing how flawed methods and misrepresented data led to false conclusions about drug use rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques media coverage of drug testing programs for welfare recipients in Tennessee and Florida. He points out that the widely reported extremely low drug use rates (0.12% in Tennessee) are due to flawed testing methods, not actual low drug use. The Tennessee program only used a written questionnaire, while Florida's program, which used urine tests, was misrepresented by not accounting for those who refused testing. Alexander argues that these misleading reports are worse than Brian Williams' helicopter story embellishment because they misinform on important policy issues and display arrogance in criticizing those who believe welfare recipients use drugs at higher rates. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander cautions against basing opinions on limited research, using examples from medicine and economics to show how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander warns against relying on a single study or a limited selection of studies to form opinions on complex issues. He illustrates this with examples from medical research and the minimum wage debate, showing how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. The post emphasizes the importance of considering the full body of evidence, including meta-analyses and expert opinions, while also being aware of potential biases in research and reporting. Scott concludes by advocating for skepticism and thorough investigation when evaluating claims backed by scientific studies. Shorter summary

Scott shares a diverse collection of links and brief commentaries on scientific studies, political news, cultural phenomena, and personal observations across various fields. Longer summary

This post is a collection of links and brief commentaries on various topics, including scientific studies, political news, and cultural phenomena. Scott covers a wide range of subjects, from the effects of ultraviolet radiation on weight gain to the decline of cults, global inequality trends, genetic links to violent crime, and the concept of competitive governance. He also discusses recent political events, media controversies, and developments in artificial intelligence research. The post includes personal observations, book recommendations, and reflections on social dynamics within online communities. Shorter summary

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously criticizes ten irritating internet trends he hopes will end in 2014, ranging from overused words to memes and logical fallacies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander humorously criticizes ten internet trends he wants to stop seeing in 2014. These include overused words like 'fanboy' and 'butthurt', inconsistent arguments about global warming, the doge meme, meta-humor, socioeconomic insults, misuse of 'dude' and 'bro', generational arguments, criticism of girls with male friends, and doge memes referencing the Doge of Venice. He satirically dissects each trend, pointing out their logical flaws or overuse, and occasionally proposes solutions or compromises. The post is written in a sarcastic and exasperated tone, reflecting Scott's frustration with these internet phenomena. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks claims of effectiveness for Vancouver's 'Don't Be That Guy' anti-rape campaign, arguing that the reported crime reduction is likely due to normal statistical fluctuations rather than the campaign's impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques claims that the 'Don't Be That Guy' anti-rape campaign in Vancouver reduced sexual assault rates by 10%. He argues that such small changes in crime rates are common and don't necessarily indicate causation. He examines crime statistics from Vancouver and Edmonton, where the campaign originated, showing that similar fluctuations occur in various crime categories and across different years. Scott suggests that the apparent success of the campaign may be due to selective reporting and misinterpretation of statistics. He concludes by proposing that such campaigns might be more about signaling group membership than actually reducing crime. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes misleading media coverage of 'The High Quality Research Act', clarifying its actual content and arguing for a more nuanced debate on NSF funding priorities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media coverage of a new draft bill called 'The High Quality Research Act'. He points out that many news sources have misrepresented the bill's content, falsely claiming it would ban peer review or destroy the concept of facts. Scott clarifies that the bill actually aims to change the grant funding review process and prevent duplicate funding applications. He acknowledges legitimate concerns about the bill potentially restricting funding to 'practical' research, but argues that the debate should focus on whether the current NSF grant criteria need improvement, rather than on exaggerated claims about the bill's effects. Shorter summary