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 presents multiple satirical scenarios of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner' to critique various aspects of democracy and political behavior. Longer summary

This post is a satirical take on democracy using the metaphor of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner'. Scott Alexander presents multiple variations of this scenario, each highlighting different aspects of democratic systems, political behavior, and societal issues. The scenarios touch on topics such as the electoral college, political pandering, deficit spending, voting against self-interest, special interests, fact-checking, immigration, compromise, foreign interference, Brexit-like situations, and coalition politics. The tone is humorous and ironic, using the wolf-sheep dynamic to illustrate various critiques of democratic processes. Shorter summary