The review examines Daniel Everett's 'How Language Began', which challenges Chomsky's linguistic theories and proposes an alternative view of language as a gradual cultural invention. Longer summary

This book review discusses Daniel Everett's 'How Language Began', which challenges Noam Chomsky's dominant theories in linguistics. Everett argues that language emerged gradually over a long period, is primarily for communication, and is not innate but a cultural invention. The review contrasts Everett's views with Chomsky's, detailing Everett's research with the Pirahã people and his alternative theory of language origins. It also touches on the controversy Everett's work has sparked in linguistics and its potential implications for understanding language and AI. Shorter summary

The review critically examines and then steelmans Robert Wright's claims about meditation and enlightenment in 'Why Buddhism Is True', concluding with personal reflections on meditation's effects. Longer summary

This review of Robert Wright's 'Why Buddhism Is True' explores the book's central claim that meditation can free us from evolutionary illusions and lead to enlightenment. The reviewer initially presents a critical view, questioning whether Wright's version of enlightenment might lead to a nihilistic state. However, the review then steelmans Wright's arguments, suggesting that meditation could potentially lead to a more morally aware state by strengthening 'calm passions' and removing craving and aversion. The reviewer concludes by sharing personal experiences from a meditation retreat that align with Wright's more optimistic vision, while acknowledging the subjective nature of these experiences. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares a diverse collection of links on topics including architecture, history, science, politics, and economics, offering brief commentaries and insights on each. Longer summary

This post is a collection of various links and brief commentaries on diverse topics. Scott Alexander covers subjects ranging from architecture and history to science, politics, and economics. He discusses the Obama Presidential Library, unusual historical facts, effective altruism, AI policy careers, Bitcoin mining, and scientific studies on parenting and voter ID laws. The post also touches on topics like gender discrimination in tech, nuclear energy startups, and dietary trends. Throughout, Scott provides his characteristic mix of curiosity, skepticism, and humor in discussing these wide-ranging subjects. Shorter summary

A fictional G.K. Chesterton essay defends AI risk concerns against criticisms, arguing that seemingly fantastical ideas often become reality and that contemplating the infinite leads to practical progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a fictional essay in the style of G.K. Chesterton, responding to criticisms of AI risk concerns. The essay argues that dismissing AI risk as fantastical is shortsighted, drawing parallels to historical skepticism of now-realized technological advancements. It refutes arguments that AI risk believers neglect real-world problems, citing examples of their charitable work. The piece emphasizes the importance of contemplating the infinite for driving progress and solving practical problems, suggesting that AI, like other seemingly fantastical ideas, may well become reality. Shorter summary

A dialogue critiques Michael Huemer's view on objective moral truths, arguing that moral changes are driven by wealth and societal conditions rather than convergence on objective truth. Longer summary

This post presents a dialogue between Achitophel and Berenice discussing Michael Huemer's view on objective moral truths. Berenice argues against Huemer's perspective, suggesting that changes in moral values are primarily driven by increasing wealth and changing societal conditions rather than a convergence on objective moral truth. She provides examples such as changes in fashion, the impact of disease prevalence on moral foundations, and the influence of economic factors on moral decisions. Achitophel initially defends Huemer's view but gradually concedes some points to Berenice's arguments. The dialogue concludes with a discussion on whether certain moral foundations, particularly Care/Harm, might be more fundamental than others. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy, providing examples and comparing it to the 'weak man fallacy'. Longer summary

This post explains and analyzes the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy popularized by the author. The concept involves making a controversial claim (the bailey) and then retreating to a more defensible position (the motte) when challenged. Scott provides several examples of this fallacy in action, including in religious arguments, feminism, and pseudoscience. He then compares it to the 'weak man fallacy', showing how they are mirror images of each other. The post concludes by advising readers to avoid vague, poorly-defined concepts in debates and instead focus on specific, clear propositions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques social justice terminology, arguing that words like 'privilege' and 'racism' are used as weapons rather than tools for understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of social justice terminology, particularly words like 'privilege' and 'racism'. He argues that these terms are often used in a way that differs from their stated definitions, serving as weapons to shut down debate rather than as tools for understanding. He uses the concept of 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' to explain how social justice advocates switch between defensible and indefensible positions. The post ends by comparing this behavior to a hypothetical government conspiracy, suggesting that the way these terms are used reveals their true nature as tools of social control. 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