Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences. Longer summary

Scott examines why people support government-funded foreign aid rather than just donating directly, pushing back against the 'other people's money' argument. He considers and critiques several explanations: the force multiplier theory (seizing opponents' money), virtue signaling through voting, psychological free-riding on knowing problems are solved, coordination problems requiring bundling, transaction costs that make voluntary systems impractical, and time-inconsistent preferences where people's long-term values differ from their moment-to-moment impulses. Scott concludes by proposing a thought experiment where tax forms include an opt-out box for foreign aid, predicting most people wouldn't use it, suggesting the issue is more complex than simply wanting to spend others' money. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes comments on his previous post about POSIWID, showing how the phrase's ambiguity leads to multiple contradictory interpretations while promoting conspiracy thinking. Longer summary

Scott responds to comments on his previous post about the phrase 'The Purpose of a System is What it Does' (POSIWID). He examines various interpretations offered by commenters and argues that while some contain valuable insights, the phrase itself is problematic. He shows how POSIWID can push people from balanced views toward paranoid conspiracy theories, and demonstrates how different commenters interpret the phrase in contradictory ways. Scott argues that the phrase's ambiguity allows people to smuggle in unwarranted assumptions and that there are clearer ways to express any valuable insights it might contain. 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 'The Mind Illuminated', a Buddhist meditation guide by Culadasa, praising its clarity while questioning some of its optimistic claims about meditation progress and risks. Longer summary

This post reviews 'The Mind Illuminated', a guide to Buddhist meditation by Culadasa. The book divides meditation into ten stages, focusing on concentration meditation. It presents a model of the mind based on 'subminds' and consciousness as a shared space, similar to global workspace theory. The author praises the book's clarity and care in explaining concepts, but questions some of its optimistic claims about the speed of attaining meditative mastery. The review compares Culadasa's approach to other meditation teachers, particularly regarding the potential risks of meditation like the 'Dark Night'. Overall, the reviewer finds Culadasa's optimism justified, likening meditation to a beneficial practice with fewer side effects than many medications. Shorter summary