A diverse collection of news items, studies, and interesting facts from November 2024, covering topics from scientific discoveries to cultural phenomena. Longer summary

This post is a compilation of various news items, studies, and interesting facts from November 2024. It covers a wide range of topics including scientific discoveries, political events, technological advancements, cultural phenomena, and historical anecdotes. The post is structured as a numbered list, with each item briefly summarizing a piece of news or information. Some notable items include a new schizophrenia drug approval, YouGov polling results on various historical figures, findings on genetic IQ changes over time, and updates on AI technology and its implications. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the rise and fall of New Atheism, arguing it was replaced by social justice as the dominant online 'hamartiology' explaining society's problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the rise and fall of New Atheism, a movement that dominated online discourse in the early 2000s. He traces its origins to the early days of the internet, when intellectual debates about religion were common, and its peak in the mid-2000s with the rise of prominent atheist authors. Scott argues that New Atheism declined around 2015 as it was supplanted by the social justice movement. He proposes that both movements served a similar psychological function as 'hamartiologies' - explanations for what's wrong with the world. New Atheism blamed religion for society's ills, while social justice focuses on racism and sexism. The essay suggests this transition reflects broader changes in how people engage in online discourse and form tribal identities. 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

Scott reviews 'Albion's Seed' by David Fischer, exploring how four British cultural groups that settled colonial America shaped regional cultures and may still influence modern US political divisions. Longer summary

This post reviews David Fischer's book 'Albion's Seed', which examines four distinct British cultural groups that settled different regions of colonial America: the Puritans in New England, the Cavaliers in Virginia, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Borderers in Appalachia. Scott explores how these groups' distinct values and practices shaped American regional cultures and may still influence modern political divisions. He discusses interesting facts about each group and speculates on how their legacies might relate to current 'Blue Tribe' and 'Red Tribe' cultural divides in the US. The post ends by wrestling with the implications of deep-rooted cultural differences for democracy and national unity. Shorter summary

Scott shares and comments on various news articles and studies, covering topics from police tactics and Trump's campaign to behavioral genetics and dietary research. Longer summary

A diverse collection of links covering various topics, with Scott Alexander's commentary on each. The post includes news about politics, scientific studies, and cultural phenomena. Highlights include a discussion of police tactics against drug dealers, updates on Trump's campaign, studies about bombing in Vietnam, diet research, and behavioral genetics. The post maintains a light and sometimes humorous tone while discussing serious topics, with Scott adding his characteristic analytical perspective and occasional wit to each link. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky against accusations of being anti-scientific, arguing that developing rational thinking skills beyond traditional scientific methods is valuable and necessary. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Topher Hallquist's criticism of Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky as being 'anti-scientific rationality'. Scott argues that Hallquist's criticisms are often unfair or inaccurate, taking quotes out of context or misunderstanding Yudkowsky's positions. He defends the rationalist community's efforts to develop better thinking tools that go beyond traditional scientific methods, while still respecting science. Scott contends that developing an 'Art of Thinking Clearly' is valuable and necessary, especially for experts who have to make difficult judgments. He argues Less Wrong is not against science, but wants to strengthen and supplement it with additional rational thinking skills. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks as an example to explain their necessity and purpose. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks about atheists as an example. He argues that such thought experiments, while disturbing, are necessary to tease out our true moral intuitions and principles. Scott explains that these scenarios are designed to be extreme to magnify small effects, similar to how physicists use extreme conditions to study fundamental laws. He emphasizes that engaging with such thought experiments doesn't mean philosophers endorse or fantasize about these scenarios, but rather use them as tools to explore complex ethical issues. Shorter summary

A collection of interesting links covering various topics including medical discoveries, scientific studies, social issues, and economic findings, with brief commentary on each. Longer summary

This is a links post collecting various interesting articles and studies. The topics range from medical discoveries to economics, from social issues to scientific studies. It includes discussions of the Brindley lecture in urology, property rights on the moon, fecal transplant effects on weight, mental health policies at Yale, studies on criminality and parenting, and various other scientific and social findings. The post presents each link with a brief commentary or explanation, often with Scott's characteristic mix of curiosity and skepticism. Shorter summary

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes. Longer summary

This post discusses the counterintuitive success of conservative religious movements compared to liberal ones, exploring the idea that demanding commitments and strict rules can actually strengthen religious communities. Scott examines this concept in the context of atheist religion-substitutes, noting their tendency to avoid placing rules on members. He contrasts this with the approach of Giving What We Can, which requires a specific commitment from members. The post concludes by considering the potential of 'nomic' subcultures based on rule-following as a possible direction for secular community-building. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how issues become politicized along tribal lines, preventing rational discussion and leading to counterproductive behaviors. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses how various issues become politicized and tied to tribal narratives, using examples like the Ebola quarantine debate, the Rotherham scandal, and climate change. He argues that when issues become referendums on tribal identity, it prevents rational discussion and leads to counterproductive behaviors. He suggests that framing issues in ways that respect out-group narratives could help, but notes this rarely happens due to media incentives. Shorter summary

Scott examines the benefits of cuddle culture, particularly for asexual people in polyamorous relationships, and speculates on the factors that allow such a culture to thrive in certain communities. Longer summary

Scott explores the intersection of polyamory, asexuality, and cuddle culture. He begins by discussing Heartiste's criticism of polyamory, agreeing that it can work well for asexual people. He then examines the Cuddlr app, arguing that cuddling is the opposite of objectifying and can foster a sense of universal love. Finally, he reflects on the prevalence of cuddle culture in nerdy, polyamorous communities, speculating on the factors that allow such a culture to thrive. Throughout, Scott emphasizes the personal and social benefits of cuddling, particularly for asexual individuals in polyamorous relationships. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the ethics of tattling and promise-keeping, arguing for the importance of trustworthy promises even when they conflict with moral imperatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his conflicting feelings about a patient who reported another patient using heroin in rehab. He explores the concept of tattling and promise-keeping, comparing his stance to Leah Libresco's views on breaking immoral agreements. Scott argues for the importance of trustworthy promises in society, even when they might conflict with moral imperatives. He suggests that clear consequences for breaking promises, like in ancient oaths, might be preferable to the ambiguity of modern moral reasoning about promise-keeping. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes Moloch as a metaphor for destructive societal coordination problems, using various examples to show how competing incentives can lead to negative outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of Moloch as a metaphor for destructive coordination problems in society, drawing on Allen Ginsberg's poem and various examples to illustrate how competing incentives can lead to negative outcomes for all. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares a diverse collection of interesting links and brief commentaries on topics ranging from pollution solutions to genetic discoveries and cultural differences. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares various interesting links and brief commentaries on diverse topics. These include an Effective Altruism survey, innovative solutions to pollution, a unique thundercloud, eating habits of liberals and conservatives, a critique of cyberbullying, police body cameras, genetic discoveries related to intelligence, polio outbreaks, race and drug testing in hiring, cultural differences based on agriculture, China's economic future, and circular farms seen from airplanes. The post is a collection of brief, often unrelated observations and references to articles Scott found intriguing. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against using dishonest and harmful tactics in pursuit of social or political goals, defending the power of truthfulness, kindness, and liberalism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against the idea that using lies, insults, and harassment is justified in pursuing social or political goals. He contends that civilization and progress are built on agreements to be truthful and kind, even to opponents. The post explores how beneficial equilibria can arise without central enforcement, through reciprocal communitarianism and 'divine grace'. Scott defends his focus on criticizing those who claim to be rational but use dishonest tactics, seeing them as a threat to the 'walled garden' of rational discourse. He argues that liberalism and non-violence have been historically successful strategies, contrary to the view that they are weak. The post ends by comparing liberalism to a powerful 'Elder God' that should not be underestimated. Shorter summary

A collection of interesting links covering topics from Mormon facial recognition to migraine treatments to housing policy, with Scott's analysis and commentary on each. Longer summary

This is a links post collecting various interesting stories and articles. It covers diverse topics including a study about Mormons being able to recognize each other, Silicon Valley housing issues, statistics about African immigrants, medical research about migraines and gum chewing, updates on anti-aging drugs, and various cultural and political stories. The post includes both lighthearted items (like puppy pregnancy syndrome in India) and serious policy discussions (like minimum wage debates), while maintaining Scott's characteristic mix of intellectual curiosity and careful analysis. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues for a legitimate 'spirit of the First Amendment' that protects the marketplace of ideas, criticizing tactics that silence rather than address arguments. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'spirit of the First Amendment' and its implications for free speech. Scott Alexander disagrees with Popehat's criticism of this concept, arguing that there is a legitimate meaning to it. He explains that the spirit of the First Amendment is about protecting the marketplace of ideas, where arguments succeed based on evidence rather than the power of their proponents. Scott distinguishes between good responses to arguments (addressing ideas) and bad responses (silencing them), including methods like getting people fired, doxxing, and online harassment. He argues that these silencing tactics distribute power based on popularity and wealth rather than the validity of ideas. The post concludes by stating that bad arguments should be met with counterarguments, not with tactics that silence or harm the speaker. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander, though pro-gay rights, criticizes the suspension of Phil Robertson for his comments, arguing for broader societal tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a post by JT criticizing defenders of Phil Robertson, who was suspended for his comments about homosexuality. Scott, while being pro-gay rights, expresses concern about Robertson's suspension. He argues that although freedom of speech doesn't legally bind private actors, there's a societal need for tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. He draws parallels with religious freedom and warns against normalizing punishment for expressing opinions, suggesting it could backfire on minority groups like atheists or gay people. Scott emphasizes the importance of counterarguments over punitive actions in ideological debates. Shorter summary

Scott shares and comments on various interesting links, ranging from charity history and religious debates to scientific discoveries and technological developments. Longer summary

This is a link roundup post covering various interesting articles and findings. The topics range from efficient charity and religious debates to scientific discoveries about pain medication and sleep, and from unusual technological developments to curious psychological phenomena. The post includes commentary on each link, often with Scott's characteristic humor and skepticism, particularly about certain scientific claims. The links cover subjects as diverse as tiny mobile houses, digital-biological converters, and unusual seizure triggers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the nuances of apologies, their meanings, and societal implications, using personal and political examples to illustrate the complexities involved. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the complexities of giving and accepting apologies, using a personal anecdote from his hospital work and expanding to broader societal implications. He explores three different meanings of 'I'm sorry' and the difficulties in expressing regret without admitting fault. The post delves into the challenges politicians face when apologizing, the potential consequences of different types of apologies, and Scott's personal reflections on his ability to apologize and accept apologies. He concludes by advocating for a more nuanced understanding of apologies and the importance of accepting them in the spirit they are offered. Shorter summary

Scott critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify bans, arguing that they often disguise sacred values and can lead to more harm than good. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify banning practices. Scott starts with a satirical proposal to ban healthcare to prevent non-consensual treatment, then extends this to banning non-Democrat candidates to prevent accidental voting. He argues that these 'fake consensualism' arguments are often used to disguise sacred values as neutral principles. The post explains that while consent is important, banning practices entirely based on the possibility of non-consent often leads to more harm than good. Scott concludes by calling for a higher burden of proof for such arguments and suggesting that Basic Income Guarantee would be a better way to ensure genuine consent. Shorter summary

Scott describes a philosophical role-playing game adventure called 'Fermat's Last Stand', featuring puzzles, debates, and original songs. Longer summary

This post describes a role-playing game adventure called 'Fermat's Last Stand', a sequel to a previous game. It follows a group of philosophers and other characters on a quest to find information about the mysterious Bayesian Conspiracy. Their journey takes them through various philosophical and mathematical challenges, encounters with famous thinkers, and battles with pirates. The adventure involves solving puzzles, engaging in debates, and navigating ethical dilemmas. The story is interspersed with original songs that relate to the plot and characters. The post ends with credits for those who helped create the game and music. Shorter summary

Scott critiques Chesterton's 'truth-telling thing' argument, suggesting that religion's apparent coherence stems from cultural conditioning rather than inherent truth. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques G.K. Chesterton's 'truth-telling thing' argument for religion. He argues that religion's claims are often wrong when testable, and that the feeling of coherence people get from religion is due to cultural conditioning rather than inherent truth. Scott uses a metaphor of fractured Roman culture being restored by ancient texts to illustrate how exposure to religious doctrines can create a false sense of enlightenment. He suggests that modern Western thought is a mix of Christian and modernist ideas, and that exposure to pure forms of either can feel revelatory, but for different reasons related to how we hold beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the ethical implications of publicly debating medical confidentiality breaches, introducing the concept of the 'Virtue of Silence' as a potential solution. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the ethical dilemma of a doctor considering breaking medical confidentiality to free an innocent prisoner, as debated in the New York Times. He argues that the act of publicly discussing this dilemma in a major newspaper is more damaging to medical confidentiality than the actual breach would be. Scott introduces the concept of the 'Virtue of Silence,' suggesting that sometimes the most ethical action is to refrain from discussing certain issues publicly. He explores the challenges of practicing silence, the value of not contributing to viral debates, and the potential pitfalls of trying to enforce silence. The post ends with a nuanced view on when silence might be appropriate and a personal commitment to maintaining patient confidentiality. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander outlines and criticizes ten fallacious argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's beliefs, demonstrating how they can be used to unfairly attack any position. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a series of argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's position by exaggerating or distorting their belief. He presents ten variations of this fallacious reasoning, each escalating the misrepresentation in a different way. These range from likening a belief to religious faith, to suggesting that holding a belief implies extreme fanaticism or hatred of opponents. The post concludes with a densely packed example combining all ten argument styles, using the mundane topic of wearing coats in cold weather to demonstrate how absurd these arguments can become when applied to any belief. Scott clarifies that while some of these issues can be real problems, these argument styles are 'fully general' and can be used to attack any position unfairly. Shorter summary