Scott Alexander reviews 'The Revolt of the Public', a 2014 book that predicted the rise of social media-driven mass revolts against elites, finding its insights now obvious but acknowledging its prescience at the time of publication. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Martin Gurri's 'The Revolt of the Public', a book from 2014 that predicted the rise of social media-connected masses revolting against elites. The book discusses various protest movements from 2011, including the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, characterizing them as leaderless, nihilistic, and driven by privileged groups. Gurri argues that the internet broke down the government-media-academia elite axis, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. The review critically examines Gurri's thesis, noting that some predictions haven't fully materialized and suggesting that the left-right political divide may have partially stalled the 'revolt of the public'. Scott concludes that while the book was prescient when published, its insights are now obvious, making it less relevant today. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to various criticisms of meritocracy from commenters, arguing that despite its flaws, meritocracy is preferable to alternatives like cronyism. Longer summary

This post discusses various criticisms and concerns about meritocracy raised in the comments of a previous article. Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to several key points, including the definition of meritocracy, its application in different fields, potential negative consequences, and alternatives. He addresses concerns about meritocracy creating a disconnected elite class, stripping lower classes of leadership, and the challenges of truly implementing a merit-based system. Scott argues that while meritocracy has flaws, it's still preferable to alternatives like cronyism, and criticizes some anti-meritocracy arguments as being utopian or impractical. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends true meritocracy against misguided critiques, arguing for a system based on demonstrated ability rather than educational credentials. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to various articles criticizing meritocracy, arguing that these critiques often misunderstand the concept. He defines true meritocracy as positions going to those most capable, regardless of their background or education. The post argues that the current system, which heavily relies on educational credentials, is not truly meritocratic. Scott suggests that fields should focus more on demonstrated ability rather than formal education, using programming as a positive example. He emphasizes the importance of defending the term 'meritocracy' to maintain a clear alternative to the current flawed system. Shorter summary