Scott reflects on having young children and how they've inherited specific traits, preferences, and quirks from both him and his wife in surprisingly precise ways. Longer summary

Scott explores the unexpected joys and challenges of seeing himself reflected in his children, particularly his son's inheritance of his childhood train obsession and OCD tendencies. He describes how his twins have split parental traits between them - his son inherited Scott's quirks while his daughter inherited his wife's - and how they've developed their own unique combinations. The post then shifts to discussing his parenting philosophy, defending his negotiation-based approach against critics by comparing family dynamics to feudal systems of rights and duties, complete with detailed examples of bedtime routines and the complex rules that have evolved through negotiation with his toddlers. Shorter summary

Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked. Longer summary

Scott explains why he consistently rejects grant applications for projects aimed at improving online debates through argument mapping or similar technologies. He outlines several fundamental problems: real arguments don't decompose into simple logical premises and conclusions as these tools assume; arguments rarely hinge on simple factual errors or logical fallacies but on different weightings of evidence; these platforms face an impossible bootstrapping problem since people don't actually want structured debates (they want to express opinions and be agreed with); and unlike dating apps, there's no historical precedent for this type of technology working over thousands of years of human argumentation. Shorter summary

A satirical dialogue showing how opponents of AI pause proposals often ignore that advocates explicitly call for bilateral agreements with China, not unilateral pauses. Longer summary

Scott presents a satirical dialogue between a supporter and opponent of AI pause proposals, where the opponent repeatedly ignores the supporter's explicit statements about wanting a bilateral agreement with China and keeps attacking a strawman position of 'unilateral pause.' The supporter patiently explains multiple aspects of pause proposals - including bilateral negotiations, enforcement mechanisms, economic considerations, and quotes from actual pause advocates like Eliezer Yudkowsky and David Krueger - but the opponent continues to repeat the same mischaracterization throughout the entire exchange. Shorter summary

Scott examines the tension between correcting false claims (like that crime is actually up but hidden) and being accused of deflecting from related legitimate concerns (like disorder), using his recent crime posts as an example. Longer summary

Scott discusses two opposing rhetorical fallacies: the 'malicious streetlight effect' (debunking a slightly different claim than what was actually made) and 'directional correctness' (making claims slightly stronger than evidence supports). He uses his recent crime statistics posts as an example, where he was accused of the streetlight fallacy—arguing crime is down when people's real concerns were about disorder and quality-of-life issues. Scott defends his posts by noting he was responding to real, influential arguments that crime rates are actually up but hidden by reporting bias or medical advances (citing neoreactionary blogs that claimed murder would be 40x higher without modern medicine). He acknowledges the tension: it's important to correct false claims, but doing so can look like deflection from legitimate related concerns. His solution is to explicitly acknowledge related topics upfront and promise to address them separately. Shorter summary

Scott responds to comments on his Scott Adams obituary, defending his mixed tone while making some updates based on feedback about Adams' podcast reach and influence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his Scott Adams obituary, addressing criticisms about the post's timing and tone, defending his characterization of Adams' interest in manipulation, discussing the reach of Adams' podcast, and (reluctantly) clarifying his position on Adams' controversial race-related comments. The post includes updates acknowledging that Adams' podcast was more influential than initially stated and that his manipulation techniques coexisted with genuine helpfulness to many people. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes how the term 'fascist' combines factual meaning with implied violence-justifying connotations, making its casual use potentially dangerous in current political discourse. Longer summary

Scott examines the logical inconsistency between three commonly held beliefs: that many Americans are fascists, that fascists are legitimate targets for violence, and that political violence in America is currently unacceptable. Using the recent Twitter dispute between Gavin Newsom and Stephen Miller as a starting point, he explores how the term 'fascist' has both denotative meaning (far-right nationalist) and violent connotations. The post discusses the challenges of determining when political violence becomes justified, and concludes that while the term 'fascist' shouldn't be banned, it's better to avoid using it when possible to prevent contributing to dangerous rhetoric. Shorter summary

In a fictional podcast dialogue, God and Iblis debate whether human intelligence shows genuine promise or is fundamentally flawed, with God defending humans despite their limitations while Iblis argues they're a failed experiment. Longer summary

The post is a fictional dialogue between God, Iblis (Satan), and podcast host Dwarkesh Patel debating the merits and flaws of human intelligence. Iblis criticizes humans by showing examples of their logical failures, ethical inconsistencies, and inability to generalize knowledge, while God defends humans by emphasizing their potential and progress. The debate touches on topics like mathematical understanding, ethical reasoning, and pattern recognition. God ultimately argues that despite their flaws, humans show genuine promise and deserve patience and nurturing, comparing them to children who make mistakes but have potential. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shows how he won his 2022 bet about AI image generation capabilities, tracking the progress from early failures to complete success in 2025, using this to argue against AI skeptics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes the resolution of a bet he made in June 2022 about AI image generation capabilities. The bet claimed that by June 2025, AI would master image compositionality and be able to accurately generate specific complex scenes. The post shows the progression of AI image generation from 2022 to 2025, starting with early failures by DALL-E2, through various partial successes with Google Imagen and DALL-E3, and ending with ChatGPT 4o's complete success in May-June 2025. Scott uses this to argue against critics who claimed AI was just a 'stochastic parrot' that couldn't achieve true understanding, though he acknowledges some remaining limitations with very complex prompts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments and criticism on his earlier post about 'Missing Heritability', discussing issues like gene-environment interactions, sequencing technology limitations, and the use of polygenic scores across ancestry groups. Longer summary

This post compiles and responds to notable comments on Scott's earlier post about 'Missing Heritability'. The post is structured in four sections, starting with responses from experts named in the original post, particularly Sasha Gusev who critiques the treatment of gene-environment interactions and cross-population polygenic scores. The second section features detailed technical comments from knowledgeable readers about topics like genetic interactions and sequencing technology limitations. The third section addresses specific corrections to the original post, while the final section covers various other interesting comments and discussions. Throughout, Scott engages with the criticisms and new perspectives while maintaining his original position on most key points. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes Stephen Skolnick's theory that schizophrenia is caused by gut microbes rather than genetics, showing why the evidence better supports schizophrenia being a complex genetic neurodevelopmental disorder. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Stephen Skolnick's theory that schizophrenia is caused by gut microbes rather than genetics. He systematically dismantles Skolnick's arguments by showing that twin concordance rates are exactly what we'd expect from a genetic condition, that microbiological inheritance patterns don't match schizophrenia inheritance patterns, and that the gut bacteria evidence cited was likely caused by antipsychotic medication rather than being causative. He concludes by explaining why schizophrenia is best understood as a complex neurodevelopmental disorder with multiple contributing factors rather than having a single cause. Shorter summary

Scott explains why it's important to explicitly acknowledge when you're wrong in an argument before moving on to your next point, rather than just continuing with 'but...' Longer summary

Scott discusses a conversational heuristic about acknowledging when you're wrong before moving on to your next argument. He explains that when someone proves you wrong about something, it's better to explicitly admit the error before continuing the discussion, rather than just moving on to the next point. He illustrates this with examples and argues that this practice helps track how often you're wrong and shows your discussion partner that you're engaging in good faith. Shorter summary

Scott argues for the importance of correcting lies and exaggerations in arguments, even when it seems pedantic, to prevent a harmful escalation of distortions in discourse. Longer summary

Scott discusses the importance of correcting lies and exaggerations in arguments, even when it seems pedantic to do so. He argues that unchecked exaggerations lead to escalating distortions, using examples from political discourse. The post explains that allowing small lies to pass unchallenged creates a harmful dynamic where truth becomes increasingly distorted, though he acknowledges some caveats where strict accuracy isn't necessary. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, correcting his own previous claims about overhead costs while maintaining that Cowen's criticism of USAID was misleading and potentially harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen's criticism of his previous post about USAID funding. He addresses several points: whether Cowen endorsed Rubio's claims about USAID waste, the true nature of overhead costs in USAID-funded organizations, and the broader debate about foreign aid effectiveness. Scott shows that actual administrative overhead in major USAID partners like Catholic Relief Services is much lower than previously thought (around 6-7% rather than 30%), admits his mistake on this point, but maintains his criticism of Cowen's original post as misleading. He argues that USAID's work is predominantly focused on essential humanitarian aid rather than wasteful programs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Marginal Revolution post by Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, where Cowen suggests that only 12% of funds go to recipients. Scott explains that this is misleading because USAID is not a direct charity but a funding organization that works through other charities. He details how the grant-making process works, defends the overhead costs, and points out that Cowen himself runs an organization (Mercatus Center) that does similar regranting. Scott particularly criticizes Trump and Rubio for misrepresenting these programs as wasteful, noting that programs like PEPFAR have saved millions of lives and have very low rates of unexplained expenses. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Curtis Yarvin's current support for Trump-style populism directly contradicts his earlier detailed writings warning against exactly this type of right-wing populist movement. Longer summary

Scott analyzes how Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) has contradicted his own earlier writings by supporting Trump-style right-wing populism. Scott shows how Yarvin's original work specifically warned against populist strongmen and laid out specific requirements for legitimate autocracy, including non-democratic selection, oversight by a board of directors, and cryptographic safeguards. The post details how Yarvin previously called right-wing populism a dangerous failure mode of his philosophy that would lead to disaster, making his current support of Trump particularly hypocritical. Scott quotes extensively from Yarvin's old blog to demonstrate the magnitude of his reversal. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes comments on his previous post about POSIWID, showing how the phrase's ambiguity leads to multiple contradictory interpretations while promoting conspiracy thinking. Longer summary

Scott responds to comments on his previous post about the phrase 'The Purpose of a System is What it Does' (POSIWID). He examines various interpretations offered by commenters and argues that while some contain valuable insights, the phrase itself is problematic. He shows how POSIWID can push people from balanced views toward paranoid conspiracy theories, and demonstrates how different commenters interpret the phrase in contradictory ways. Scott argues that the phrase's ambiguity allows people to smuggle in unwarranted assumptions and that there are clearer ways to express any valuable insights it might contain. Shorter summary

Scott responds to comments and criticisms of his post about Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis and its implications for arguments about God's existence, addressing technical points about Boltzmann brains, simplicity measures, and philosophical objections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews and responds to comments on his previous post about Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. He addresses technical criticisms about Boltzmann brains and probability measures, explains why the theory requires simplicity weighting, and defends his claim that it defeats many arguments for God's existence. He engages with philosophical objections about falsifiability and originality, arguing that falsifiability is not the only way to evaluate theories and dismissing claims that the ideas are just reinventing ancient philosophy. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical 2024 presidential debate between Biden and Trump, featuring increasingly absurd positions on various issues. Longer summary

Scott Alexander moderates a fictional presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for the 2024 election. The debate takes surreal turns as both candidates express increasingly bizarre views on topics like states' existence, abortion, wokeness, conspiracy theories, and immigration. Biden expresses solipsistic doubts about reality, while Trump argues for an expanded notion of America based on anthropic reasoning. The debate highlights the absurdity of political discourse through exaggerated positions and philosophical tangents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Lyman Stone's critique of Effective Altruism (EA), addressing several key arguments. He points out flaws in Stone's methodology for evaluating EA's impact on charitable giving, explains why EA focuses on diverse causes, defends the value of research and white-collar work in philanthropy, argues against the suggestion of extreme measures like terrorism, and discusses the philosophical foundations of caring about animal welfare. Scott also refutes the claim that EA ideas are unoriginal, highlighting the movement's unique aspects and its role as a social technology for promoting altruistic behavior. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes comments on his healthcare effectiveness debate with Robin Hanson, including clarifications, study author responses, and reader perspectives on various healthcare topics. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's recent discussion with Robin Hanson about healthcare effectiveness. It includes responses from Robin Hanson clarifying his position, comments from the authors of a study on health insurance and mortality, and various reader perspectives on healthcare, medical waste, and specific medical treatments. The post touches on topics like the statistical analysis of healthcare studies, the value of preventive medicine, and the complexities of measuring healthcare outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply to his original post on medical effectiveness. Scott clarifies his interpretation of Hanson's views, discusses potential misunderstandings, and reiterates his arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical effectiveness. He also addresses specific points Hanson made about cancer treatment, health insurance studies, and p-hacking in medical research. Scott concludes by restating his position that while some medicine is ineffective, it's crucial to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments rather than dismissing medicine broadly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a common argument against AI safety concerns, which compares them to past unfulfilled predictions of disaster (like a 'coffeepocalypse'). He finds this argument logically flawed and explores possible explanations for why people make it. Scott considers whether it's an attempt at an existence proof, a way to trigger heuristics, or a misunderstanding of how evidence works. He concludes that he still doesn't fully understand the mindset behind such arguments and invites readers to point out if he ever makes similar logical mistakes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a $100,000 debate on COVID-19 origins, where the zoonotic hypothesis unexpectedly won against the lab leak theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews a debate on the origins of COVID-19 between Saar Wilf, who supports the lab leak hypothesis, and Peter Miller, who argues for zoonotic origin. The debate was part of a $100,000 challenge by Wilf's Rootclaim project. Miller won decisively, with both judges ruling in favor of zoonotic origin. Alexander analyzes the debate format, arguments, and aftermath, discussing issues with Bayesian reasoning, extreme probabilities, and the challenges of resolving complex scientific questions through debate. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about capitalism and charity. He clarifies that he's discussing a specific near-mode situation of how to best use a limited amount of money for improving human welfare, not running a 'Moral Worth Tournament' between capitalism and charity. He addresses arguments for investing in capitalism over charity, discussing issues like compounding returns, marginal utility, and the eventual need for consumption. Scott also explores specific capitalist charities suggested by commenters, including charter cities and microfinance, noting the lack of strong empirical evidence for many of these interventions. He concludes by stating what kind of evidence would change his mind on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism against Freddie deBoer's criticism, arguing for its distinctiveness, practical value, and positive marginal effects. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Freddie deBoer's criticism of effective altruism (EA) as a 'shell game'. He argues that EA can be defined distinctly from universally-held beliefs, serves as a social technology to encourage charitable action, and is composed of valuable organizations. Scott also discusses the challenges of categorizing ideological movements, suggests judging movements by their marginal effects, and defends EA's focus on both widely accepted and more controversial causes. Shorter summary