A collection of interesting links spanning architecture, science, politics and economics, with commentary on studies about lithium, lead exposure, minimum wage, and free speech. Longer summary

This is a links post where Scott Alexander shares various interesting articles and studies from around the internet. It covers a wide range of topics including architecture, science, politics, economics, and social issues. Notable items include a study showing lithium in drinking water may not have significant effects, research about the lead-crime hypothesis, discussions about minimum wage studies in Seattle, and various pieces about free speech and campus politics. Shorter summary

A wide-ranging links post covering recent research, political developments, and interesting findings across various fields, with particular focus on psychology research, political polling, and academic developments. Longer summary

An extensive roundup of links covering various topics in science, politics, and culture. Scott covers recent research on discrimination and peer effects, discusses political developments like Brexit polling and DNC chair elections, highlights interesting academic papers on personality and therapy, and shares various curiosities like tracking a child's first words. The post also covers developments in AI, drug regulation, and campus activism. The tone is analytical and exploratory, often questioning conventional wisdom and examining evidence from multiple angles. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes mainstream media's recent focus on 'coddled' college students in social justice debates, arguing it overlooks more serious issues and reflects a bias towards elite academic perspectives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concern about the recent mainstream media criticism of social justice movements. He contrasts the issues raised by small bloggers, which focus on bullying and ideological rigidity, with those raised by major media outlets, which tend to focus on college students being 'coddled'. Alexander argues that this media focus is misplaced, overlooking more serious issues while amplifying relatively minor campus disputes. He suggests this bias stems from the media's overrepresentation of elite academic perspectives. Alexander fears that allowing this narrative to dominate could derail more substantive criticism of social justice movements, and sees it as indicative of a broader problem of academia's outsized influence on media and politics. Shorter summary

Scott criticizes the misuse of terms like 'debunked' in academic and political discourse, arguing for more nuanced examination of studies and their critiques. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of terms like 'debunked' and 'well-refuted' in academic and political discourse. Scott argues that these terms are often used to dismiss opposing views without proper consideration, using examples from debates on campus rape statistics and minimum wage studies. He emphasizes the importance of critically examining studies and their critiques, rather than blindly accepting claims of debunking. The post highlights the dangers of confirmation bias and the need for nuanced understanding of complex issues, rather than simplistic dismissals of opposing viewpoints. Shorter summary