Scott Alexander discusses reader comments on his cyclic theory of subcultures, addressing critiques and expanding on the model's applications and limitations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses various comments on his post about a cyclic theory of subcultures. He addresses critiques and expansions of his model, including the role of loyalists, the importance of unassailable central figures, and how movements transition between phases. Scott also reflects on the current state of rationalism and effective altruism, provides his timeline for the rationalist movement, and explores the concept of status in subcultures. Shorter summary

Scott proposes a four-phase cyclic theory of subculture evolution, explaining their rise and fall without requiring sociopathic takeovers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a cyclic theory of subcultures, inspired by Peter Turchin's theories of civilizational cycles. He outlines four phases: Precycle, Growth, Involution, and Postcycle. The theory explains how subcultures evolve from initial enthusiasm to fragmentation and eventual stabilization, without requiring the influx of sociopaths that David Chapman's model suggests. Scott argues that the decline in *asabiyyah* (social cohesion) and increased competition for status within the subculture can explain the observed patterns of subculture evolution. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews the obscure psychoanalytic book 'Sadly, Porn', attempting to decipher its core ideas about human psychology and society. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Sadly, Porn' by Edward Teach, a complex and obscure psychoanalytic work. He attempts to decipher the book's core ideas about human psychology, desire, and societal structures, while grappling with its intentionally difficult style and controversial claims. The review explores themes of envy, status-seeking, and the modern psyche's relationship with corporations and technology, as well as the book's critique of contemporary politics and culture. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques an NYT article on the weakness of financial incentives, arguing that they remain crucial as a counterweight to powerful social incentives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a New York Times article arguing that financial incentives are less powerful than commonly assumed. He agrees with the article's main points but offers four counterarguments: 1) Marginal cases matter more than average responses, 2) Social norms can be shaped by long-term economic incentives, 3) The principle can be applied inconsistently across political lines, and 4) Financial incentives serve as an important counterweight to social incentives. Scott emphasizes that while social incentives are indeed powerful, financial incentives play a crucial role in encouraging innovation and counterbalancing potentially stifling social pressures. Shorter summary

Scott critiques Simler's theory of prestige, finding it insufficient for human behavior, and proposes five alternative explanations for the phenomenon. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Kevin Simler's theory of prestige as presented in 'Social Status: Down The Rabbit Hole'. Simler separates status into dominance and prestige, with prestige explained through the behavior of Arabian babblers. Scott finds this explanation insufficient for human prestige, particularly for admiration of celebrities or people we don't interact with directly. He proposes five alternative explanations for prestige: group signaling, coattail riding, prestige by association, tit for tat, and virtuous cycles. Scott concludes that prestige might not be a single phenomenon and that separating dominance from prestige is a good starting point for understanding status. Shorter summary