Scott argues against the trend of 'Boomer-hating,' contending that Baby Boomers delivered peace and prosperity, passed on greater wealth to their children, and don't differ significantly from younger generations on most political issues. Longer summary

Scott Alexander pushes back against the growing anti-Boomer sentiment in contemporary discourse. He argues that despite popular narratives, Baby Boomers presided over an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, and younger generations actually have more inflation-adjusted wealth than Boomers did at the same age. He examines claims that Boomers are politically extreme (both left and right), finding minimal generational differences on issues like climate change, nuclear power, and housing policy. Scott addresses the accusation that Boomers are plundering younger generations through Social Security, showing that benefit generosity peaked in 1972 and has since contracted. He concludes by warning that generational identity politics, like other forms of identity politics, provides a lazy way to hate everything while avoiding substantive policy discussion, and that today's young people will eventually face similar resentment from future generations. Shorter summary

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

The review analyzes Real Raw News, a popular conspiracy theory website, examining its content, appeal, and implications in the context of modern media consumption and AI technology. Longer summary

This book review analyzes the website Real Raw News, a popular source of conspiracy theories and fake news stories centered around Donald Trump and his alleged secret war against the 'Deep State'. The reviewer examines the site's content, its narrative techniques, and its appeal to believers, drawing parallels to comic book lore and discussing the psychological needs it fulfills. The review also considers the broader implications of such conspiracy theories in the age of AI-generated content. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes that political hyperpartisanship might be a form of trauma, comparing PTSD symptoms to behaviors observed in political extremists. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the idea that political extremism might be a form of trauma. He compares symptoms of PTSD to behaviors observed in politically hyperpartisan individuals, such as triggers, distorted cognitions, and hypervigilance. The post discusses how trapped priors in the brain might explain both cognitive and emotional aspects of political extremism. Scott also considers the implications of framing political partisanship as trauma, including potential risks of expanding the concept of trauma. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines which US political party has become more extreme faster, concluding Democrats have moved further left on policy since 1994, while results vary for other aspects of extremism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the question of which political party in the US has become more extreme faster, breaking it down into four sub-questions. He concludes that Democrats have moved further left on policy positions since 1994 than Republicans have moved right, based on survey data and first principles. On divergence from ordinary Americans, he calls it a tie. Regarding ideological purity, Republicans show more polarization in Congress, but it's unclear for average voters. Scott avoids declaring a winner on which party has become crazier in worldview and messaging. He argues the policy position change is most important, supporting the meme that Democrats have moved more extreme, while noting other interpretations could point to Republicans. Shorter summary

Scott responds to various reader comments on his article about having children despite climate change, addressing critiques and expanding on several points. Longer summary

This post highlights and responds to various comments on Scott's previous article about having children despite climate change concerns. It covers topics such as the sincerity of climate concerns, political implications, carbon emissions by location, the severity of climate change impacts, and arguments for and against having children in the current climate context. Scott engages with these comments, offering additional insights, corrections, and reflections on the original arguments. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Revolt of the Public', a 2014 book that predicted the rise of social media-driven mass revolts against elites, finding its insights now obvious but acknowledging its prescience at the time of publication. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Martin Gurri's 'The Revolt of the Public', a book from 2014 that predicted the rise of social media-connected masses revolting against elites. The book discusses various protest movements from 2011, including the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, characterizing them as leaderless, nihilistic, and driven by privileged groups. Gurri argues that the internet broke down the government-media-academia elite axis, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. The review critically examines Gurri's thesis, noting that some predictions haven't fully materialized and suggesting that the left-right political divide may have partially stalled the 'revolt of the public'. Scott concludes that while the book was prescient when published, its insights are now obvious, making it less relevant today. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the evolving narrative around a news story about ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma hospitals, illustrating how cognitive biases and media dynamics can distort information. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines a news story about ivermectin overdoses overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals, showing how it evolved from a local news report to international coverage, and was then seemingly debunked. He uses this as a case study in cognitive biases, media narratives, and the difficulty of determining truth in polarized situations. The post is structured in three parts, each revealing a new layer of complexity and uncertainty in the story. Scott emphasizes the importance of skepticism and checking sources, even (or especially) when a story confirms one's existing beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares and comments on passages from Peter Turchin's 'Ages of Discord', exploring historical cycles of unity and polarization in American society. Longer summary

This post is a collection of highlighted passages from Peter Turchin's book 'Ages of Discord'. Scott Alexander discusses various historical examples of unity and polarization in American society, including demands for more partisanship in the 1940s, intense violence in Congress during the Civil War era, and the role of conflict with Native Americans in forging a common 'white' identity. The post also touches on the concept of 'elite overproduction' and its impact on political stability, and examines Turchin's use of word frequency analysis to track societal cooperation over time. Scott concludes by noting parallels between economic crises and shifts in prevailing economic doctrines. Shorter summary

Scott reviews 'Ages of Discord', which applies cyclic theories of civilizational rise and fall to modern America, finding the data interesting but the core theory questionable. Longer summary

Scott reviews Peter Turchin's book 'Ages of Discord', which attempts to apply the demographic-structural theory of civilizational cycles to modern America. The book presents data showing cyclic patterns in various societal indicators over the past 200+ years, including two main cycles: a long 150-year cycle of national growth and decline, and a shorter 40-60 year cycle of instability. Scott examines the data, theory, and potential problems with applying this pre-industrial model to a modern economy. While finding the data interesting, he is skeptical of some of the theoretical explanations and notes several issues with the arguments. He concludes that while the book provides some valuable concepts and historical information, its core cyclical theory remains questionable. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains why the controversial Culture War thread was removed from r/slatestarcodex due to harassment, and discusses the challenges of hosting spaces for difficult conversations online. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explains why the Culture War thread on the r/slatestarcodex subreddit was shut down and moved to a new subreddit. He describes how the thread became a unique space for civil discussion of controversial topics, but also attracted harassment and threats against Scott personally. This led to a nervous breakdown and the decision to separate the thread from his blog. Scott uses this story to illustrate broader issues around hosting spaces for difficult conversations online, and the climate of fear and censorship that can result from harassment campaigns. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the overuse of the term 'conspiracy theory' and provides heuristics for evaluating the plausibility of conspiratorial claims. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of conspiracy theories, arguing that the term is often overused and misapplied. He presents a list of various claims, ranging from political conspiracies to scientific misconduct, and analyzes which should be considered conspiracy theories. The post introduces the 'Basic Argument Against Conspiracy Theories' which states that large secret organizations are difficult to maintain without detection. Scott then applies this principle to various scenarios, showing how some seemingly conspiratorial ideas might not actually qualify as conspiracy theories. He concludes by offering heuristics for evaluating the plausibility of conspiracy claims, emphasizing that the size, secrecy, and self-interest of the groups involved are key factors to consider. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a survey on readers' estimated probabilities of Kavanaugh's guilt, finding significant partisan differences and no clear consensus even with probabilistic thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander conducted a survey asking readers to estimate the probability of Judge Kavanaugh being guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. The post analyzes the results, breaking them down by political party, gender, and background knowledge. The average probability given was 52.64%, with significant partisan differences. The survey also explored whether respondents thought the accusations were sufficient to reject Kavanaugh's nomination. Scott notes that even when encouraged to think probabilistically, people's responses still showed strong partisan biases, and there was no clear consensus even among politically neutral respondents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that fundamental value differences are less common and less aligned with political tribes than often assumed, emphasizing the need for coexistence despite varying values. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges the idea that fundamental value differences are a significant barrier to cooperation. He argues that many apparent value differences are actually factual disagreements or inconsistently applied principles. Using examples like foreign aid and immigration, he shows how people's values often shift based on context and convenience. Alexander suggests that while some fundamental value differences may exist, they don't necessarily align with political or cultural tribes. He concludes that since everyone has some value differences with everyone else, learning to coexist despite these differences is crucial. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as an oversimplified explanation for complex issues, arguing for a more nuanced approach to understanding and addressing societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as a catch-all term that conflates different motives and beliefs, leading to ineffective discourse and polarization. He argues that treating racism as a simple explanation for complex issues prevents understanding root causes and finding effective solutions. The post uses an analogy of 'murderism' to illustrate how this approach is flawed, and suggests that breaking down racist actions into non-racist motives can lead to better outcomes. Scott emphasizes the importance of maintaining liberal values and open dialogue to prevent societal breakdown. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article on conservative 'tribal epistemology', arguing that liberal bias in supposedly neutral institutions has driven conservatives to create their own spaces, exacerbating polarization. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques David Roberts' article on the rise of 'tribal epistemology' among US conservatives. While agreeing with some points, Scott argues that Roberts underestimates conservative grievances against supposedly neutral institutions. He illustrates how these institutions, including academia and media, often display liberal bias while claiming neutrality. Scott explains that conservatives' exodus to their own spaces is a reaction to this bias, resulting in echo chambers on both sides. He suggests that this pattern repeats across various domains, from workplaces to scientific conferences. The post concludes by advocating for a different approach, implying that the current liberal bias in 'neutral' spaces is counterproductive and exacerbates polarization. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential negative consequences of invoking free speech to defend controversial speakers or ideas. He argues that while free speech should protect unpopular views, repeatedly using it to defend offensive content may lead to a backlash against the principle itself. The post compares respect for free speech to a commons that can be depleted if overused, especially in the context of growing partisanship. Scott warns that associating free speech primarily with conservative causes could turn it into a partisan issue, alienating liberals. He suggests that to preserve free speech, it should be invoked to defend liberal causes as well, preventing it from becoming solely associated with controversial right-wing figures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques two articles arguing that facts and logic are ineffective in changing people's minds, especially regarding political issues. He contends that true debate, following specific conditions he outlines, is rarely attempted and could be more effective than assumed. He suggests that collaborative truth-seeking and adversarial collaborations could be powerful tools for the media. Alexander argues that logical debate is an asymmetric weapon favoring truth, unlike rhetoric or violence which can be used equally by all sides. He concludes that while improving debate quality is a slow process, it's necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander endorses Clinton (or Johnson/Stein in safe states) over Trump, citing concerns about Trump's unpredictability and potential negative impacts on conservatism and social dynamics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander endorses voting for Hillary Clinton in swing states, and Clinton, Johnson, or Stein in safe states. He argues against Donald Trump, not primarily on policy grounds, but because of Trump's unpredictability, potential for high-variance outcomes, and the damage he could do to conservatism and the fight against social justice extremism. Alexander expresses concerns about Trump's lack of concrete plans, his potential to radicalize the next generation towards the far left, and his movement's epistemic vices. He also touches on issues like global warming and immigration, urging readers to consider the long-term consequences of their vote. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses how political groups can shift from outgroups to 'fargroups', leading to less hostility and more exoticization, and predicts this pattern may increase political in-fighting while reducing inter-party conflict. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'fargroups' as opposed to outgroups, and how this distinction affects political discourse. He argues that as groups become less threatening, they transition from outgroups to fargroups, leading to exoticization rather than hostility. The post traces this pattern in the decline of atheism vs. religion debates and the rise of intra-party conflicts in American politics. Scott predicts that as political bubbles increase, opposing parties may become fargroups, while internal party factions become the new outgroups. He also notes a trend of sympathetic portrayals of Trump and Brexit supporters, suggesting they're transitioning to fargroup status for some progressives. Shorter summary

Scott reviews 'Albion's Seed' by David Fischer, exploring how four British cultural groups that settled colonial America shaped regional cultures and may still influence modern US political divisions. Longer summary

This post reviews David Fischer's book 'Albion's Seed', which examines four distinct British cultural groups that settled different regions of colonial America: the Puritans in New England, the Cavaliers in Virginia, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Borderers in Appalachia. Scott explores how these groups' distinct values and practices shaped American regional cultures and may still influence modern political divisions. He discusses interesting facts about each group and speculates on how their legacies might relate to current 'Blue Tribe' and 'Red Tribe' cultural divides in the US. The post ends by wrestling with the implications of deep-rooted cultural differences for democracy and national unity. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares a collection of mostly critical and often insulting testimonials about his blog Slate Star Codex, revealing the diverse and polarized reactions to his work. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares a collection of testimonials and feedback he has received about his blog Slate Star Codex over three years. The post presents a wide range of opinions, many of which are highly critical, insulting, or dismissive. The feedback touches on various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and the blog's community. Some comments praise his intelligence while criticizing his verbosity or political stance. Others mock his writing style, accuse him of censorship, or make personal attacks. The testimonials reveal the diverse and often polarized reactions to Scott's work, ranging from admiration to outright hostility. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a diverse collection of interesting links covering politics, science, history, and culture, with brief commentary on each item. Longer summary

A curated collection of interesting links spanning various topics, compiled by Scott Alexander. The post covers a wide range of subjects including political events, scientific studies, historical anecdotes, and cultural phenomena. Among the notable items are stories about medieval fighting myths, a massive Chinese ghost mall, Japanese parliament members' nationalism, and various statistical studies. The post maintains a light, often humorous tone while presenting these diverse pieces of information, occasionally adding brief commentary or connections between different items. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that effective altruism should be wary of pursuing systemic change, as it risks wasting resources and alienating supporters. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concerns about effective altruism focusing on systemic change rather than traditional charity. He argues that pursuing systemic change risks wasting resources on politically divisive issues, potentially making catastrophic errors, and alienating potential supporters. The post is structured as a dialogue between two viewpoints, followed by additional arguments. Scott concludes that effective altruism's focus on direct, quantifiable interventions is valuable and shouldn't be lost in pursuit of more politically charged systemic change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the unexpected success of political outsiders like Trump and Corbyn, attributing it to growing ideological polarization and anti-establishment sentiment. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the rise of outsider political figures like Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn, attributing their unexpected success to a growing trend of ideological polarization and distrust of the establishment. He argues that as the political spectrum widens, traditional politicians struggle to balance appealing to their base while remaining electable, creating an opening for candidates who signal their opposition to the establishment. The post compares Trump's and Corbyn's seemingly opposite yet similar rises to power, and suggests this trend might explain other political surprises like Bernie Sanders' popularity and Obama's 2008 victory over Hillary Clinton. Shorter summary