Scott Alexander discusses how categories are human constructs that should be flexible when it serves a useful purpose, using examples from biology, astronomy, and transgender identity. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of categorization and how it applies to various topics, including the classification of whales as fish, the definition of planets, and transgender identity. Scott argues that categories are not inherently true or false but are tools we use to make sense of the world, and that we should be flexible in our categorizations when it serves a useful purpose. He uses examples from biology, astronomy, geography, and psychiatry to illustrate his points. The post concludes by addressing criticisms of transgender identity and arguing for compassion and practicality in how we treat people with gender dysphoria. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores five unspoken assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies when not clarified. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses five unspoken ground assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies. These include: (1) whether one is presenting a balanced view or arguing for one side, (2) if the argument is literal or pointing towards a hard-to-explain concept, (3) whether describing real-world phenomena or underlying mechanisms, (4) if addressing a specific problem or contributing to a broader intellectual discussion, and (5) whether presenting a definite theory or a hypothesis for consideration. He argues that ambiguity in these grounds can lead to confusion and false accusations of logical fallacies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces the concept of 'ambijectivity' to describe statements that are neither purely subjective nor objective, using musical and astronomical examples to illustrate the idea. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'ambijectivity' - statements that are neither purely subjective nor purely objective. He uses examples like comparing Mozart and Beethoven's music, or defining what constitutes a planet, to illustrate how seemingly subjective statements can have elements of objectivity. The post argues that ambijective statements are undefined over a set of possible meanings, and can be broken down into more specific, objective questions. The subjectivity comes from how we weight these different questions in composing the meta-question. This framework helps explain why some comparisons (like Mozart vs. a child's toy piano playing) feel more objective than others. Shorter summary