Scott Alexander creates a test using Pew Research data to gauge predictions about American values changes from 1987 to 2009, hypothesizing that people will underestimate their own political position's strength. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a test he created using Pew Research data on American values from 1987 to 2009. The test asks participants to predict the percentage of Americans agreeing with certain statements in 2009, estimate the change since 1987, and state their own political position. Scott hypothesizes that most people will underestimate the strength of their own political position due to the underdog effect. He's particularly interested in Neoreactionaries' responses given their belief in the power of the Cathedral. Scott assures that the test isn't rigged and asks participants not to Google the answers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes 'bravery debates' as toxic and unproductive, explaining psychological factors that lead to their persistence and recommending against engaging in them. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques 'bravery debates', where people claim to be bravely holding unpopular positions against persecution. He argues these debates are toxic and unproductive, often devolving into inflammatory rhetoric. Scott explains how the hostile media effect and selective attention to negative examples can make opposing groups feel equally persecuted. He cites studies showing that portraying oneself as an underdog can gain support and sympathy. Scott concludes that these debates are addictive but ultimately unhelpful, drowning out more substantive discussions. He recommends avoiding bravery debates unless one is genuinely risking something by speaking out. Shorter summary