Scott explores the paradox that while it's unfair to judge people/movements by their worst moments rather than accomplishments (like psychology or effective altruism), we all naturally do this anyway (like with Anthony Weiner), and he has no solution to this dilemma.

Scott shares his monthly collection of interesting links from around the internet, covering topics from Jeremy Bentham's linguistic legacy to AI developments, with characteristic commentary and fact-checking caveats.

Scott Alexander explains why dismissing warnings just because previous similar warnings were wrong is a dangerous fallacy, particularly for risks that naturally increase over time.

Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman.

Scott Alexander explores the misconception of utilitarianism, arguing that many common political actions are more ethically questionable than his own 'utilitarian' views.

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

Scott Alexander argues against significantly updating beliefs based on single dramatic events, advocating for consistent policies based on pre-existing probability distributions.

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming an illusion of moral decline, pointing out methodological flaws and suggesting alternative explanations for the perception of declining morality.

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

Scott Alexander examines two types of conspiracy theories, suggesting they stem from different cognitive processes: unusual evidence processing and emotional priors.

Scott Alexander addresses reactions to his claim that media rarely lies, exploring different interpretations of 'lying' and examining specific cases of alleged media deception.

Scott Alexander discusses the dangers of relying on 'Heuristics That Almost Always Work' through various examples, highlighting their limitations and potential consequences.

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

Scott Alexander analyzes the evolving narrative around a news story about ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma hospitals, illustrating how cognitive biases and media dynamics can distort information.

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.

Scott Alexander introduces his new blog, Astral Codex Ten, centered around the concept of ṛta and exploring topics related to rationality, science, and human cognition.

Scott Alexander examines seven cognitive traps that lead doctors to believe they're above-average, potentially applying to other client-choice professions.

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'.

Scott Alexander proposes a hierarchy of types of disagreements, from low-level meta-debate to high-level philosophical differences, and discusses how to engage in more productive arguments.

Scott presents a distorted map of Europe as a riddle, challenging readers to reconsider their perceptions and solve the puzzle.

Scott Alexander discusses the difficulty of recognizing concepts we might be missing, using examples from psychology and sociology to argue for keeping an open mind towards seemingly trivial ideas.

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.

Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Scott Alexander examines why compelling but unlikely stories on large internet platforms are probably lies, despite our reluctance to believe so.

Scott Alexander examines the ethics of sympathy for workers in difficult professions, exploring the tension between economic incentives and personal experiences in shaping our views on labor issues.