Scott Alexander uses a king-and-viziers analogy to argue that people can be inherently good even when their actions seem selfish, and explores the nature of evil and human goodness. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of human goodness using an analogy of a wise king misled by evil viziers. He argues that people can be inherently good even when their actions seem selfish, much like the king who makes bad decisions based on biased information. Scott suggests that we should identify people with the 'king' of their minds rather than the 'viziers', seeing them as fundamentally good despite their actions. He discusses the nature of evil, defining it as certain habits of mind that make it easy for one's 'viziers' to mislead them. The post ends by relating this concept to Trivers' theory of consciousness. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that claims about pro-lifers secretly wanting to oppress women are uncharitable and likely false, and that we should engage with actual philosophical disagreements on abortion. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article arguing that pro-lifers don't actually care about fetuses but only want to coerce women. He argues this claim is uncharitable and likely false for several reasons: 1) It misunderstands the non-consequentialist ethics of many pro-lifers, 2) There's no evidence of widespread secret motivations, 3) It's unclear what it would even mean to 'not really believe' something, 4) It commits the genetic fallacy. Scott argues we should engage with the actual philosophical disagreements rather than impugning motives, and that the principle of charity is important when discussing contentious issues like abortion. 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

Scott argues against the concept of 'objectification', claiming it unnecessarily stigmatizes harmless attractions and prevents potentially beneficial relationships. Longer summary

Scott criticizes the concept of 'objectification' or 'fetishization', particularly in response to writings by Ozy. He argues that the concept is flawed and potentially harmful, preventing mutually beneficial relationships from forming. Scott contends that being attracted to specific characteristics is not inherently wrong, and that the real issue is when people ignore consent, not objectification itself. He uses various examples to illustrate his point, including hypothetical scenarios and personal anecdotes. The post challenges the idea that having preferences or 'fetishes' is inherently problematic, suggesting that open communication about desires is more beneficial than stigmatizing them. Shorter summary