Scott Alexander proposes that political hyperpartisanship might be a form of trauma, comparing PTSD symptoms to behaviors observed in political extremists. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the idea that political extremism might be a form of trauma. He compares symptoms of PTSD to behaviors observed in politically hyperpartisan individuals, such as triggers, distorted cognitions, and hypervigilance. The post discusses how trapped priors in the brain might explain both cognitive and emotional aspects of political extremism. Scott also considers the implications of framing political partisanship as trauma, including potential risks of expanding the concept of trauma. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'trapped priors' as a fundamental problem in rationality, explaining how it leads to persistent biases and suggesting potential solutions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'trapped priors' as a fundamental problem in rationality. He explains how the brain combines raw experience with context to produce perceptions, and how this process can lead to cognitive biases and phobias. The article discusses how trapped priors can make it difficult for people to update their beliefs, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Scott also examines how this concept applies to political biases and suggests potential ways to overcome trapped priors. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes media tendencies to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements, arguing we should focus more on their stated positions and actions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media's tendency to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements or 'dog whistles'. He argues this often ignores the politicians' actual stated beliefs and policies in favor of overanalyzing gaffes or interpreting statements as secret codes. The post examines three cases: Ted Cruz being called anti-Semitic for saying 'New York values', Ken Livingstone being labeled anti-Semitic for comments about Hitler and Zionism, and Donald Trump being called openly sexist despite his pro-women hiring record. Scott suggests we should be more skeptical of media claims to have special insight into politicians' true beliefs and instead focus on their stated positions and past actions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks the idea that Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, revealing that Bernie Sanders actually has much whiter support, and uses this to challenge common narratives about race and politics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the media narrative that Donald Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, showing it to be unsupported by polling data. He then reveals that Bernie Sanders, not Trump, has a much higher ratio of white to non-white support within his party. Scott uses this to illustrate two points: 1) 'white' in political discussions often means the 'Red Tribe' rather than literal race, and 2) low minority representation in a group doesn't necessarily indicate racism. He suggests that Sanders' lack of minority support might be due to him being seen as a 'weird intellectual signaling-laden countercultural movement', similar to other groups with low minority representation like atheists or BDSM enthusiasts. Shorter summary