Scott presents and analyzes seven different analogies to understand whether sophisticated artistic taste is truly superior to popular taste, ultimately concluding it's most like a system of arbitrary rules with post-hoc justifications. Longer summary

Scott examines different analogies for understanding artistic taste and whether sophisticates' judgment of art can be considered superior to popular taste. He presents seven different analogies: taste as physics (based on objective truths), as priesthood (arbitrary rules), as priesthood with semi-fake justifications (like fashion rules), as genuinely justified rules, as desensitization (like porn), as fashion signaling, and as grammar (arbitrary but felt deeply). After analyzing these analogies, Scott argues that artistic taste is most like a priesthood with semi-fake justifications, citing evidence like taste's rapid changes over time, disagreement among experts, political influences, and failed blind tests. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines his sudden shift towards conservatism, proposing it may be part of a broader trend of intellectuals differentiating themselves from mainstream leftism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of fashion and political beliefs using a cellular automaton model, then reflects on his sudden shift towards conservatism. He proposes that this shift might be due to a counter-signaling hierarchy, where intellectuals differentiate themselves from mainstream leftism by adopting more conservative or libertarian views. The post discusses various potential explanations for this shift, including stress, exposure to neoreactionary ideas, and a desire to avoid being associated with certain leftist positions. Scott concludes by hoping that this pendulum-like movement between political positions might lead to gradual learning and improvement over time. Shorter summary