Scott Alexander examines various interpretations of rationality, concluding it might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores different interpretations of rationality and the debate between rationalists and anti-rationalists. He examines rationality as full computation vs. heuristics, explicit computation vs. intuition, and Yudkowsky's definition of 'systematized winning'. The post concludes by suggesting rationality might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. This perspective explains why rationality is often associated with explicit calculation, despite the importance of intuition and heuristics in practical decision-making. The post argues that while intuitive methods may often be effective, the formal study of rationality allows for replication, scaling, and innovation in ways that intuition alone cannot. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how increased rational debate doesn't always lead to truth, using personal and societal examples, and suggests ways to carefully approach traditions and changes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of asymmetric weapons, which work better for good guys than bad guys, and how sometimes this asymmetry can be reversed. He discusses how increased rational debate and resources don't always lead to truth, using examples like minimum wage debates and personal habits. The post then examines societal-level examples, such as debates about politicians' salaries and early 20th-century socialism. Scott concludes with suggestions on how to approach traditions and changes carefully, emphasizing the importance of understanding before discarding, tolerating unexplained behaviors, and gradually improving on obsolete traditions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains postmodernism to rationalists, using the Dark Age debate as an example, and discusses its applications, risks, and critiques. Longer summary

Scott Alexander attempts to explain postmodernism to rationalists, using the debate about the existence of a European Dark Age as an example. He describes postmodernism as focusing on how politically-motivated people weave facts to tell specific stories, rather than on the facts themselves. The post discusses how this applies to various fields and how everyone uses postmodernist thinking sometimes. Scott also explores the potential risks of postmodernism collapsing into ignoring disagreeable facts and addresses critiques of the philosophy. He concludes by comparing rationalist and postmodernist approaches to dealing with subjectivity and bias. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends rationalists against common criticisms, arguing that the movement is self-aware and actively tries to avoid past mistakes while striving for improvement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to common criticisms of rationalists, economists, and psychiatrists. He argues that these criticisms are often outdated or based on misunderstandings, and that the fields in question are usually well aware of their own shortcomings. He focuses on the rationalist community, explaining that they actively try to avoid the mistakes of past movements, are aware of potential pitfalls, and strive for constant self-improvement and error minimization. Scott emphasizes that while the rationalist movement is likely still making mistakes, they are new ones rather than the obvious errors that critics often assume. Shorter summary

Kieran Egan's educational theory proposes rebuilding school curricula around five kinds of understanding to create more engaging and effective learning experiences. Longer summary

This review explores Kieran Egan's educational theory outlined in his book 'The Educated Mind', which proposes a new approach to education based on five kinds of understanding: Somatic, Mythic, Romantic, Philosophic, and Ironic. Egan argues that schools fail because they ignore cognitive tools that have worked for centuries and instead try to balance three incompatible educational goals. He suggests rebuilding the curriculum around these cognitive tools to create more engaging and effective learning experiences. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes a blog post criticizing rationalism, arguing it misunderstands the movement and its core values of empiricism, scholarship, and humility. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a blog post titled 'Why I Am Not A Rationalist' on Almost Diamonds, arguing that it fundamentally misunderstands both classical rationalism (Descartes) and modern rationalism (Yudkowsky). He points out that the blog post accuses rationalists of lacking empiricism, scholarship, and humility, when these are in fact core values of the rationalist movement. Scott provides numerous examples to demonstrate the rationalist community's commitment to these principles. He concludes by explaining why rationality skills are necessary in addition to empirical knowledge, especially when dealing with limited or conflicting information. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against the claim that 'rationality free from ideology doesn't exist', asserting that recognizing irrationality implies the existence of rationality. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the argument that 'there's no such thing as rationality free from ideology'. He argues that if we can identify people who are especially irrational or biased (like Alex Jones), then we must also be able to recognize those who are more rational or objective. Scott contends that while perfect rationality might be impossible, this doesn't mean we can't strive for improvement. He suggests that claiming the impossibility of true rationality is actually arrogant, as it implies one has reached the limits of what's possible. The post emphasizes the importance of recognizing that some approaches can be more rational than others, and that we should learn from those who are better at rationality rather than dismissing the concept entirely. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's anti-technocracy essay, arguing for a more nuanced view of formal mechanisms in decision-making and defending rationalist approaches. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's essay 'Why I Am Not A Technocrat', arguing that Weyl's definition of technocracy is incoherent and his examples don't fit his own definition. Scott breaks down the concept of technocracy into several axes, including top-down vs. bottom-up, mechanism vs. judgment, and expert vs. popular opinion. He argues that formal mechanisms can be valuable in preventing bias and corruption, using examples like district creation and college admissions. Scott also defends the rationalist and effective altruism communities against Weyl's criticisms, highlighting their successes in areas like pandemic preparedness. He concludes that while critiques of technocracy are important, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the issue and to recognize that sometimes technocratic approaches can be beneficial. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism from Chris Kavanagh about his lengthy analysis of ivermectin studies. He argues that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can push people toward conspiracy theories. Scott shares his personal experience with Atlantis conspiracy theories as a teenager, emphasizing the importance of providing rational explanations rather than mockery. He critiques Kavanagh's apparent stance against examining evidence, likening it to religious fideism. Scott defends the value of practicing critical thinking and evidence evaluation, even on settled issues, to build skills for harder cases. He argues that conspiracy theorists use similar reasoning processes to everyone else, just with more biases, and that understanding these processes is crucial for effective communication and prevention of misinformation. 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 examines the use of absurdity arguments, reflecting on his critique of Neom and offering strategies to balance absurdity heuristics with careful reasoning. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his previous post mocking the Neom project, considering whether his use of the absurdity heuristic was justified. He explores the challenges of relying on absurdity arguments, acknowledging that everything ultimately bottoms out in such arguments. The post discusses when it's appropriate to use absurdity heuristics in communication and personal reasoning, and offers strategies for avoiding absurdity bias. These include calibration training, social epistemology, occasional deep dives into fact-checking, and examining why beliefs come to our attention. Scott concludes that while there's no perfect solution, these approaches can help balance the use of absurdity arguments with more rigorous thinking. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses how his blog contributes to developing rationality skills through analysis of complex issues and community discussion, despite not focusing directly on core rationality techniques. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the role of his blog in the rationalist community's development of rationality skills. He compares rationality to a martial art or craft, requiring both theory and practice. While acknowledging that his blog often focuses on controversial topics rather than core rationality techniques, he argues that analyzing complex, contentious issues serves as valuable practice for honing rationality skills. He suggests that through repeated engagement with difficult problems, readers can develop intuitions and refine their ability to apply rationality techniques. Scott emphasizes the importance of community discussion in this process, highlighting how reader comments contribute to his own learning and updating of beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Lyman Stone's critique of Effective Altruism (EA), addressing several key arguments. He points out flaws in Stone's methodology for evaluating EA's impact on charitable giving, explains why EA focuses on diverse causes, defends the value of research and white-collar work in philanthropy, argues against the suggestion of extreme measures like terrorism, and discusses the philosophical foundations of caring about animal welfare. Scott also refutes the claim that EA ideas are unoriginal, highlighting the movement's unique aspects and its role as a social technology for promoting altruistic behavior. Shorter summary

A collection of interesting links spanning topics from CRISPR technology to economic studies, with Scott's commentary on each item. Longer summary

This is a links post collecting various interesting articles and studies across multiple domains. Scott shares updates on CRISPR technology, corporate governance issues, demographic claims about Bernie Sanders supporters, studies about gender bias, and various economic research. The post includes both lighter observations (like different views of the White House) and serious academic papers about genetics, intelligence, and economic development. The format is typical of SSC links posts, with brief commentary on each link and occasional humorous asides. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander clarifies that his blog Slate Star Codex is not strictly representative of the rationalist community, and addresses common misconceptions about the blog's relationship to rationalism and effective altruism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander clarifies several points about his blog Slate Star Codex (SSC) and its relationship to the rationalist community. He emphasizes that SSC is not strictly a 'rationalist blog', comparing it to a 'rationalist picnic' rather than a 'rationalist monastery'. Scott expresses skepticism about claims of rationality's practical utility in everyday life, and points readers to other resources for more intensive rationalist and effective altruist content. He stresses that while he's not distancing himself from the rationalist community, SSC should not be seen as representative of or equivalent to the broader rationalist movement. The post aims to address common misconceptions and set appropriate expectations for readers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines tribalism, arguing that ideologies often serve as 'rallying flags' for tribes rather than defining their core identity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of tribalism, arguing that ideologies and beliefs often serve as 'rallying flags' for tribes rather than being the core of what defines them. He examines various examples including religious sects, disability communities, and online subcultures to illustrate how tribes form, develop, and sometimes dissolve. The post suggests that understanding groups as tribes with historical context rather than purely ideological entities can provide insight into many social phenomena and conflicts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Seeing Like A State', examining how state efforts to standardize and control societies often backfire by ignoring local knowledge. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Seeing Like A State' by James Scott, which examines how states have historically tried to make societies more 'legible' through standardization and top-down planning, often with disastrous results. The book covers examples from forestry, urban planning, agriculture and more, contrasting the failures of high modernist schemes with the success of local, traditional knowledge (metis). While acknowledging some benefits of standardization, the review explores the book's critique of overzealous state planning that ignores local conditions and wisdom. Shorter summary

The post explores how emotional learning creates hard-to-update mental models, drawing parallels between psychotherapy, psychedelics, and rationality techniques in overcoming these 'mental mountains'. Longer summary

This post discusses the book 'Unlocking The Emotional Brain' (UtEB) and its implications for understanding biases and mental processes. The author explores how emotional learning creates unconscious predictive models that guide behavior, and how these models can be difficult to update even in the face of contradictory evidence. The post draws parallels between UtEB's approach, psychedelic therapy, and rationality techniques, suggesting that they all aim to overcome mental 'mountains' that separate different areas of knowledge or belief. The author proposes that these mental separations might be a necessary feature of how our brains generalize from experiences, but can also lead to problems like cognitive biases and psychiatric symptoms. The post concludes by considering how this framework might help understand and address deeply held but irrational beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reposts his 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' critiquing libertarian philosophy and arguments, noting it no longer fully reflects his current views. Longer summary

This post is a reposting of Scott Alexander's 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' (aka 'Why I Hate Your Freedom'), which he wrote about 5 years prior. The FAQ aims to provide a comprehensive critique of libertarian philosophy and arguments. It covers economic issues like externalities and market failures, social issues like social mobility and taxation, political issues like government competence and specific policy areas, and moral issues around rights and consequentialism. The author notes that this version no longer fully reflects his current views and is being reposted by popular request and for historical interest. 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 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 bids farewell to California's Bay Area, praising its culture and the rationalist community while offering heartfelt tributes to friends who influenced him. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his time in California's Bay Area as he prepares to leave for a four-year residency in the Midwest. He expresses deep appreciation for the Bay Area's unique culture, particularly the rationalist community he was part of. Scott describes the community's ability to discuss complex topics openly, their approach to happiness and virtue, and their unique social dynamics. He then offers personal tributes to numerous friends and acquaintances who have impacted him, highlighting their individual qualities and contributions to his life and the community. Shorter summary

This collaboration examines the empirical evidence and significance of spiritual experiences, arguing they deserve serious consideration as an important aspect of human life. Longer summary

This adversarial collaboration explores the significance of spiritual experiences as empirical evidence for a transcendent reality. The authors review psychological research, epistemological arguments, near-death experiences, and entheogen use, discussing how to interpret such experiences and their impact on individuals. While not reaching a definitive conclusion on the metaphysical reality of spiritual experiences, they argue these experiences deserve serious consideration as an important aspect of human life worthy of further exploration. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to various comments on his review of 'The Secret of Our Success', covering topics from language evolution to cultural practices and critiques of the book's claims. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's review of 'The Secret of Our Success'. It covers various topics including language creation, human strength compared to apes, cultural evolution, traditional practices, and the interplay between tradition and rationality. The post also touches on critiques of the book's claims, discussions on illegible preferences, and parallels with psychoanalytic concepts. It ends with perspectives on labor practices in Dubai and insights from StarCraft 2 strategies as metaphors for cultural evolution. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay about trigger warnings in rationalist spaces, arguing that the community's purpose is dispassionate discussion and that everyone, not just marginalized groups, has triggers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay by Apophemi about trigger warnings and discourse in the rationalist community. He argues that the rationalist community is already a 'safe space' for people who want to discuss ideas dispassionately, and that trying to make it safe for everyone would fundamentally change its nature. He shares his own experiences of being triggered by social justice rhetoric, and suggests that everyone has triggers, not just marginalized groups. Scott also discusses issues around language use, slurs, and political correctness, arguing that context and intent matter when determining what language is harmful. Shorter summary