Scott Alexander explores various explanations for why top students attend the best colleges, including optimistic views about maximizing potential and cynical views about signaling and 'privilege laundering'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the question of why top students are sent to the best colleges, presenting both optimistic and cynical explanations. He discusses the potential benefits of matching high-performing students with expert teachers, but also considers the signaling theory of education. The post delves into a fascinating hypothesis about elite colleges functioning as 'privilege laundering' machines, mixing meritocratic and privileged students to create a universally recognized signal of merit. Scott examines the potential advantages and drawbacks of this system, concluding that while imperfect, it may be preferable to alternatives that completely disregard merit. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how people can have vastly different experiences of the world and others, even in similar circumstances, due to social bubbles, varying interpretations of social cues, and unconscious influences. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses how people can have vastly different experiences of the world and other people, even when in similar circumstances. He starts by recounting his experience as a psychiatrist, where his patients behaved differently from those of his colleagues, possibly due to his unconscious influence. He then explores the concept of paranoia and its opposite in Williams Syndrome, suggesting that people naturally vary in their tendency to interpret ambiguous situations positively or negatively. The post then delves into the concept of social bubbles, noting how the author's social circle differs dramatically from the general population in various ways. Finally, he ties these ideas together, proposing that people's different experiences of the world - whether they find others to be kind or cruel, discriminatory or accepting - may be due to a combination of self-selection into different social bubbles, varying tendencies in interpreting social cues, and unconscious influences on others' behavior. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines 'dualization' in various fields, comparing its effects to non-dualized professions and exploring its causes and broader implications in society. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'dualization' in various fields, comparing academia and drug gangs to illustrate how some professions separate into binary classifications of winners and losers. He contrasts this with non-dualized fields like computer programming, where success is more of a continuous spectrum. The post explores the drawbacks of dualized fields, including higher risk for individuals, potential for oppression, and increased politicization. Scott then examines what causes dualization, considering factors like licensing, regulation, and the concept of privilege. He extends this analysis to other areas like minimum wage and urban growth, questioning if there are ways to provide privileges with minimal dualization. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the parallels between social justice and anti-social justice groups, arguing that shared experiences of perceived persecution could lead to better understanding and less conflict. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the similarities between social justice and anti-social justice narratives, showing how both groups often feel persecuted and develop similar defensive mechanisms. He argues that this shared experience of perceived threat, even when statistically unlikely, leads to hypervigilance and extreme reactions from both sides. Scott suggests that as both groups now face similar challenges, there may be an opportunity for mutual understanding and the development of protocols to prevent escalation. He advises against dismissing the fears of either side and proposes that recognizing the shared experience of fear could lead to more productive dialogue. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques feminist stereotyping of nerds, arguing that nerds' social struggles are real and not simply male entitlement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Laurie Penny's article about 'nerd entitlement,' arguing that feminists often unfairly stereotype and shame nerdy men. He contends that nerds' social difficulties and pain are real, and not simply a result of male entitlement or privilege. Alexander criticizes the tendency to dismiss nerds' struggles and accuse them of misogyny, arguing this perpetuates harmful stereotypes. He calls for more understanding and nuance in discussions of gender, privilege, and social dynamics in nerd culture. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques social justice terminology, arguing that words like 'privilege' and 'racism' are used as weapons rather than tools for understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of social justice terminology, particularly words like 'privilege' and 'racism'. He argues that these terms are often used in a way that differs from their stated definitions, serving as weapons to shut down debate rather than as tools for understanding. He uses the concept of 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' to explain how social justice advocates switch between defensible and indefensible positions. The post ends by comparing this behavior to a hypothetical government conspiracy, suggesting that the way these terms are used reveals their true nature as tools of social control. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that generalizing male violence to all men is problematic, drawing parallels with racist generalizations about crime. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques arguments that generalize male violence to all men, drawing a parallel with how similar arguments about black people and crime would be considered racist. He analyzes statistics on crime rates by race and gender, showing that while there are disproportions, it's unfair and counterproductive to treat all members of a group as dangerous. The post suggests ways to discuss violence and rape awareness more constructively, without unfairly stigmatizing entire groups. Scott emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that the vast majority of men are not violent, and argues that overgeneralizing can be harmful both to men and to the goal of reducing violence against women. Shorter summary