Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply to his original post on medical effectiveness. Scott clarifies his interpretation of Hanson's views, discusses potential misunderstandings, and reiterates his arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical effectiveness. He also addresses specific points Hanson made about cancer treatment, health insurance studies, and p-hacking in medical research. Scott concludes by restating his position that while some medicine is ineffective, it's crucial to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments rather than dismissing medicine broadly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a comprehensive FAQ on prediction markets, arguing for their accuracy, canonicity, and potential to solve the 'crisis of trust' in society. Longer summary

This post is a comprehensive FAQ about prediction markets, explaining what they are, why they are believed to be accurate and canonical, addressing common objections, and describing clever uses for them. Scott Alexander presents prediction markets as a potential solution to the 'crisis of trust' in modern society, arguing that they can provide unbiased, accurate predictions on a wide range of issues. The post also covers the current status of prediction markets and suggests ways people can help promote them. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Bryan Caplan's constraints vs preferences model of mental illness, proposing instead a goals vs urges framework that better explains both mental and physical health issues. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Bryan Caplan's critique of psychiatry, focusing on Caplan's distinction between constraints and preferences in mental illness. Scott argues that this model is flawed and doesn't accurately represent mental or even many physical illnesses. He proposes a more nuanced model based on goals (endorsed preferences) and urges (unendorsed preferences), using examples to show how this better explains behavior in both mental and physical health contexts. Scott concludes that this model allows for a more libertarian approach, supporting individuals in achieving their goals, whether through addressing constraints or managing urges. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews his intellectual progress in the 2010s across various fields, crediting his blog for accelerating learning. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the intellectual progress he made in the 2010s, largely tracked through his blog posts. He discusses major updates in his understanding of topics like predictive coding theory, psychedelics, mental health, SSRIs, genetics, willpower, nutrition, x-risk, AI, scientific progress, cost disease, the replication crisis, placebo effect, ethics, politics, cultural evolution, social justice, game theory, and enlightenment. He notes that while some were major shifts in position, many represent 'deconfusion' - gaining a better map of the problem space. Scott credits his blog and reader interactions for accelerating his learning in the latter half of the decade. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and possibly beneficial. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a paper by Bloom, Jones, Reenen & Webb (2018) that suggests scientific progress is slowing down relative to the number of researchers. The paper shows that while progress in various fields (e.g., transistor density, crop yields) remains constant, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential increase in inputs should be our null hypothesis, as expecting proportional increases would lead to unrealistic outcomes. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where early discoveries were easier to make. Scott also warns against trying to 'fix' this trend, as it could lead to dangerous consequences if scientific progress accelerated too quickly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and potentially beneficial. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a paper by Bloom, Jones, Reenen & Webb (2018) that suggests scientific progress is slowing down relative to the number of researchers. The paper shows that while progress in various fields (like transistor density, crop yields, and economic productivity) has remained constant or grown linearly, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential input growth should be our null hypothesis, as the alternative would lead to unrealistic scenarios like immortality or 50% annual GDP growth. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where easier discoveries are made first, making further progress increasingly difficult. Scott also cautions against trying to 'fix' this trend, noting potential dangers of accelerated scientific progress. Shorter summary

TracingWoodgrains and Michael Pershan analyze the effectiveness of ability grouping, acceleration, and personalization software in serving advanced students in the education system. Longer summary

This post is an entry to the Adversarial Collaboration Contest by TracingWoodgrains and Michael Pershan, discussing whether the education system adequately serves advanced students. It examines three main approaches: ability grouping, acceleration, and personalization software. The authors review research on each approach, discuss their pros and cons, and explore the tensions between different educational goals. They conclude with practical advice for parents, educators, and educational reformers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reposts his 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' critiquing libertarian philosophy and arguments, noting it no longer fully reflects his current views. Longer summary

This post is a reposting of Scott Alexander's 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' (aka 'Why I Hate Your Freedom'), which he wrote about 5 years prior. The FAQ aims to provide a comprehensive critique of libertarian philosophy and arguments. It covers economic issues like externalities and market failures, social issues like social mobility and taxation, political issues like government competence and specific policy areas, and moral issues around rights and consequentialism. The author notes that this version no longer fully reflects his current views and is being reposted by popular request and for historical interest. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Bryan Caplan's argument that psychiatric diseases are unusual preferences rather than real illnesses, providing counterarguments and evidence to show this view is untenable. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Bryan Caplan's 2006 paper arguing that psychiatric diseases are better understood as unusual preferences rather than true illnesses. Scott challenges Caplan's distinction between preferences and budgetary constraints, arguing it breaks down for complex human experiences. He provides counterexamples showing how mental illnesses can resemble physical constraints, discusses how most psychiatric patients seek help voluntarily, and examines issues with Caplan's explanations of alcoholism and schizophrenia. Scott concludes that viewing psychiatric illnesses as simply different preferences is not tenable given the evidence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how perfect predictions of war outcomes, through oracles or prediction markets, could potentially prevent wars, and extends this concept to conflicts between superintelligent AIs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of using oracles or prediction markets to prevent wars. He begins with a hypothetical scenario where accurate predictions of war outcomes are available, discussing how this might affect decisions to go to war. He then considers the Mexican-American War as an example, proposing a thought experiment where both sides could avoid the war by negotiating based on the predicted outcome. The post then shifts to discussing the potential of prediction markets as a more realistic alternative to oracles, referencing Robin Hanson's concept of futarchy. Finally, Scott speculates on how superintelligent AIs might resolve conflicts, drawing parallels to the idea of using perfect predictions to avoid destructive wars. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against several popular Great Filter explanations, emphasizing that the true Filter must be more consistent and thorough than common x-risks or alien interventions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques several popular explanations for the Great Filter theory, which attempts to explain the Fermi Paradox. He argues that common x-risks like global warming, nuclear war, or unfriendly AI are unlikely to be the Great Filter, as they wouldn't consistently prevent 999,999,999 out of a billion civilizations from becoming spacefaring. He also dismisses the ideas of transcendence or alien exterminators as the Filter. Scott emphasizes that the Great Filter must be extremely thorough and consistent to explain the lack of observable alien civilizations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores social impact bonds as a potential way to use corporate greed to solve social problems more efficiently than current government programs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses social impact bonds, a system where corporations invest in solving social problems and get paid by the government if they succeed. He compares this to prediction markets and sees it as a way to use greed for good ends. The post explores potential applications in healthcare, education, and crime prevention. Scott also discusses the risks and potential for abuse in such systems, but ultimately sees them as a promising way to address social issues more efficiently than current government programs. Shorter summary