The review critiques Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions while highlighting flaws in its moral foundations theory and political predictions. Longer summary

This review critiques Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions to moral psychology while highlighting significant flaws. The reviewer appreciates Haidt's defense of group selection and moral intuitionism but criticizes his confusion between normative and descriptive claims. The review argues that Haidt's moral foundations theory fails to predict political alignments just a decade after publication, suggesting that political tribalism drives moral intuitions rather than vice versa. Despite these criticisms, the reviewer recommends the book for its thought-provoking nature and its role in advancing empiricism in social science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the puzzling downfall of New Atheism, comparing it to other progressive movements and questioning why it alone faced backlash for repeating accepted ideas in liberal circles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the puzzling failure of New Atheism, a movement that seemingly alienated a society that largely agreed with its positions. He notes that while most educated liberals don't believe in God and agree with New Atheists on social issues, New Atheism has become more criticized than traditional religion in these circles. The post analyzes potential reasons for this failure, including the movement's repetition of obvious truths, its inability to make a case for social importance, and its possible association with an emerging cultural divide. Scott compares New Atheism's fate to other progressive movements that similarly repeat widely accepted ideas in liberal spaces but haven't faced the same backlash. He expresses confusion and frustration at this inconsistency, wondering if this self-awareness could extend to other areas of discourse. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines tribalism, arguing that ideologies often serve as 'rallying flags' for tribes rather than defining their core identity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of tribalism, arguing that ideologies and beliefs often serve as 'rallying flags' for tribes rather than being the core of what defines them. He examines various examples including religious sects, disability communities, and online subcultures to illustrate how tribes form, develop, and sometimes dissolve. The post suggests that understanding groups as tribes with historical context rather than purely ideological entities can provide insight into many social phenomena and conflicts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how debates often revolve around vague concepts with positive or negative associations rather than specific claims, leading to logical fallacies and tribal thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'ethnic tension' in arguments, showing how debates often center around vague concepts loaded with good or bad karma rather than specific factual or moral claims. He argues this leads to motte-and-bailey fallacies, tribal affiliations, and motivated reasoning. The post analyzes how concepts become associated with groups, creating proxy ethnicities and making rational debate difficult. Scott suggests precision and separating concepts as a potential solution to this problem. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how issues become politicized along tribal lines, preventing rational discussion and leading to counterproductive behaviors. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses how various issues become politicized and tied to tribal narratives, using examples like the Ebola quarantine debate, the Rotherham scandal, and climate change. He argues that when issues become referendums on tribal identity, it prevents rational discussion and leads to counterproductive behaviors. He suggests that framing issues in ways that respect out-group narratives could help, but notes this rarely happens due to media incentives. Shorter summary