Scott categorizes California's 60 gubernatorial candidates into humorous types rather than covering them individually, from generic top-tier politicians to increasingly bizarre fringe candidates with conspiracy theories, supernatural visions, and incomprehensible platforms. Longer summary

Scott gives up on covering all 60 California gubernatorial candidates individually and instead categorizes them into amusing types: top-tier Democrats and Republicans who are all generic and interchangeable, conflict theorists who think fraud and Marxism are the problem, mistake theorists with shower-thought solutions, media getters who pay for fake magazine covers and polls, candidates with personal vendettas from lost court cases, AI natives whose campaigns appear AI-generated, nominative determinists who changed their names to things like 'LivingForGod AndCountry', college students ranging from socialist protesters to Catholic philosophers, anti-Semites with conspiracy theories, people on missions from God who received supernatural visions, entrepreneurs selling their platforms for $1000, those just having fun (like a single-issue pro-movie candidate), musicians with campaign songs, and increasingly bizarre candidates including one merging edtech with interdimensional pirate captains and another whose site randomly links to the Book of Enoch. Shorter summary

Scott argues against the concept of "telescopic altruism" - the claim that liberals care more about distant strangers than nearby people - showing that people who care about faraway causes also care about nearby ones, and that compassion is generally correlated across all distances rather than inversely related. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of "telescopic altruism," which claims that some people (usually liberals) ignore those close to them to care about distant strangers. He argues this accusation collapses under scrutiny: people who care about 50,000 deaths in Gaza would also care about 50,000 deaths among their neighbors. He debunks a commonly cited study whose heatmap visualization is misinterpreted to suggest liberals care more about rocks than family, when it actually just shows the outer limit of their moral concern. Scott proposes instead a "correlated altruism" hypothesis, citing Dave Barry's principle that someone nice to waiters is genuinely nice. He provides evidence that liberals who support foreign aid also support domestic programs like school lunches and COVID measures, and shows statistics suggesting liberals aren't worse at maintaining family relationships. The post concludes by acknowledging that some people do neglect their communities, but argues this happens because they care too much and are incompetent, not because they don't care at all. Shorter summary

Scott explores the psychology of people who hate pets by comparing their behavior with misophonia, suggesting that everyday annoyances can develop into all-consuming hatreds through rumination and intellectualization. Longer summary

Scott examines r/petfree, a subreddit dedicated to hating pets, and tries to understand the psychology behind their extreme reactions. He compares it to misophonia (hatred of certain sounds), which he suffers from, suggesting that both conditions represent a pattern where mild annoyances become reinforced through rumination into overwhelming hatred. He extends this observation to various political movements, suggesting that many are driven by similar psychological mechanisms where everyday irritants become transformed into grand theories of societal evil. The post concludes by noting that, contrary to expectations, social media may not be the primary driver of these phenomena. Shorter summary

Scott examines and rejects conflict theory (the idea that political disagreements come from material self-interest), arguing instead that political positions are primarily driven by psychological needs and identity rather than material interests. Longer summary

Scott argues against conflict theory, which posits that political disagreements stem from material self-interest, and instead proposes that political positions are driven by psychological needs. He demonstrates this through several examples: the SALT tax cap affecting coastal elites garnered little attention despite significant financial impact, vaccine debates can't be explained by material interests, and most hot-button issues like wokeness or Ukraine have minimal material impact on Americans. The post explains how psychological factors, such as desire for self-esteem and group identity, better explain political positions. Scott concludes that while this makes persuasion theoretically possible, it also explains why genuine compromise attempts are rare. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander endorses Harris, Oliver, or Stein for the 2024 US presidential election, arguing against Trump's authoritarianism while acknowledging and countering arguments that Democrats may be more subtly authoritarian. Longer summary

Scott Alexander endorses Kamala Harris, Oliver, or Stein for the 2024 US presidential election, recommending Harris in swing states and Harris or a third-party candidate in safe states. He argues against Trump primarily on the grounds of authoritarianism, comparing the threat to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Scott acknowledges the strongest counter-argument that Democrats may be more subtly authoritarian, but ultimately rejects it for four reasons: the importance of punishing clear norm violations, current political headwinds favoring the right, personal integrity, and Trump's own authoritarian tendencies. The post ends with a reflection on the psychological tendency to view elections as a two-character drama between oneself and the Democratic Party, urging readers to consider the full comparison between candidates. Shorter summary

The review critiques Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions while highlighting flaws in its moral foundations theory and political predictions. Longer summary

This review critiques Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions to moral psychology while highlighting significant flaws. The reviewer appreciates Haidt's defense of group selection and moral intuitionism but criticizes his confusion between normative and descriptive claims. The review argues that Haidt's moral foundations theory fails to predict political alignments just a decade after publication, suggesting that political tribalism drives moral intuitions rather than vice versa. Despite these criticisms, the reviewer recommends the book for its thought-provoking nature and its role in advancing empiricism in social science. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes motivated reasoning as misapplied reinforcement learning, explaining how it might arise from the brain's mixture of reinforceable and non-reinforceable architectures. Longer summary

Scott explores the concept of motivated reasoning as misapplied reinforcement learning in the brain. He contrasts behavioral brain regions that benefit from hedonic reinforcement learning with epistemic regions where such learning would be detrimental. The post discusses how this distinction might explain phenomena like 'ugh fields' and motivated reasoning, especially in novel situations like taxes or politics where brain networks might be placed on a mix of reinforceable and non-reinforceable architectures. Scott suggests this model could explain why people often confuse what is true with what they want to be true. Shorter summary

Scott proposes that value differences arise from people crystallizing heuristics at different levels, rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible differences in values. Longer summary

Scott explores the idea that value differences stem from people operating at different levels of a conceptual ladder, from explicit models to emotional experiences to reified essences to endorsed values. He argues that this perspective can help people understand each other better, as differences often arise from where individuals choose to crystallize heuristics rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible value differences. The post discusses various examples of this process, from nutrition to punishment to environmental preservation, and examines factors that influence where people place themselves on this ladder, such as intelligence, education, and personal experience. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes SSC survey data to explore the conflict vs. mistake theory distinction in political disagreements, finding that Marxists and the alt-right tend more towards conflict theory than other groups. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes data from the SSC survey to explore the distinction between conflict theory and mistake theory in political disagreements. The post presents various survey questions that tap into this distinction and shows correlations between responses. Results indicate that Marxists and the alt-right tend more towards conflict theory, while libertarians and liberals lean more towards mistake theory. The analysis also explores relationships between conflict theory tendencies and various demographic factors, finding some weak correlations with financial situation, self-perceived morality, and certain personality traits. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares and briefly comments on various insightful quotes from Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', covering topics like psychology, politics, and religion. Longer summary

This post is a collection of quotes from Jonathan Haidt's book 'The Righteous Mind' that Scott Alexander found particularly interesting or insightful. The quotes cover a wide range of topics including human psychology, social behavior, political polarization, and the role of religion in society. Scott provides brief comments on some quotes, highlighting their relevance to his own thoughts or current societal issues. The post doesn't present a cohesive argument but rather serves as a collection of thought-provoking ideas from Haidt's work. Shorter summary

A collection of interesting links covering various topics from government plots and scientific studies to religious news and technological developments. Longer summary

Scott shares a diverse collection of interesting links from March, ranging from humorous historical anecdotes to serious scientific developments. The links cover topics like failed CIA plots against Cuba, religious developments including the Catholic Church's growth and interesting saints, scientific studies about diet and health, political observations, and technological news both positive (like graphene desalination) and negative (like various platform shutdowns). The post maintains a light, sometimes humorous tone while sharing these varied pieces of information. Shorter summary