Scott Alexander presents and discusses diverse reader reactions to his review of 'Sadly, Porn', touching on the book's controversial ideas and writing style. Longer summary

Scott Alexander highlights and responds to various comments on his book review of 'Sadly, Porn' by The Last Psychiatrist. The comments cover a wide range of reactions, from strong praise to harsh criticism of the book and its ideas. Topics discussed include the book's obscurantism, its psychoanalytic perspective, the nature of advertising, people's thoughts on compliments, and various interpretations of the book's central themes. Shorter summary

A critical review of Rutger Bregman's 'Humankind', analyzing its argument that human nature is fundamentally good, while highlighting both flaws and valuable insights in the book. Longer summary

This review critiques Rutger Bregman's book 'Humankind', which argues that human nature is fundamentally good. The reviewer analyzes Bregman's arguments, pointing out logical inconsistencies and cherry-picked data, while also acknowledging some valuable insights. The book covers topics such as human behavior during crises, the nature of empathy and power, and alternative approaches to management and democracy. The review concludes that while Bregman's thesis has flaws, his core message about trusting and respecting others more has merit. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander directs readers to his essay on Works in Progress examining why suicide rates didn't increase during the COVID-19 pandemic as expected. Longer summary

Scott Alexander refers readers to his essay published on Works in Progress, which discusses the unexpected trend of suicides during the COVID-19 pandemic. The essay, titled 'Why didn't suicides rise during Covid?', likely explores the counterintuitive finding that suicide rates did not increase as many had predicted during the global health crisis. While the post itself doesn't provide details, it suggests an in-depth analysis of suicide statistics, mental health trends, and potential explanations for this phenomenon during the pandemic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes SSC survey results on trust, finding correlations with education, location, and political views, but not with gender, race, or religiosity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the results of the SSC survey question on trust, exploring how different factors correlate with people's tendency to find others trustworthy. He finds that trust levels don't significantly differ by gender, race, religiosity, or intelligence, but there are differences based on education level, location, and political views. Urban and liberal areas tend to be more trusting, as do more educated individuals. Conservatives are generally less trusting than liberals. Effective altruists and polyamorous Less Wrong readers from California are found to be the most trusting groups. The post also notes correlations with mental health conditions and drug use, and observes that people who chose 'Other' in any category were consistently less trusting. 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 critiques Simler's theory of prestige, finding it insufficient for human behavior, and proposes five alternative explanations for the phenomenon. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Kevin Simler's theory of prestige as presented in 'Social Status: Down The Rabbit Hole'. Simler separates status into dominance and prestige, with prestige explained through the behavior of Arabian babblers. Scott finds this explanation insufficient for human prestige, particularly for admiration of celebrities or people we don't interact with directly. He proposes five alternative explanations for prestige: group signaling, coattail riding, prestige by association, tit for tat, and virtuous cycles. Scott concludes that prestige might not be a single phenomenon and that separating dominance from prestige is a good starting point for understanding status. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines violent children's songs from the past to discuss changing societal norms and the reliability of social science versus conventional wisdom. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on children's songs from past generations that featured violent themes about harming teachers and burning schools. He contrasts these with modern concerns about violent media influencing children. The post explores how these songs were once common and accepted, despite actual school shootings occurring. Scott uses this to discuss the reliability of social science, conventional wisdom, and how our perception of what's 'normal' can change over time. He argues that today's common sense often originates from yesterday's pop social science, making it difficult to recognize its origins. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines political tribalism in America, arguing that people often claim tolerance while harboring strong prejudices against their outgroups. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of outgroups and ingroups, arguing that people often claim to be tolerant of all groups except their perceived outgroup. He suggests that in modern American society, political tribes (Red and Blue) have become more significant than traditional demographic divisions. The essay analyzes how these tribes interact, criticize each other, and sometimes engage in self-criticism that may actually be veiled attacks on the opposing tribe. Alexander ultimately reflects on his own biases and the difficulty of genuine self-criticism and tolerance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares and briefly comments on various insightful quotes from Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', covering topics like psychology, politics, and religion. Longer summary

This post is a collection of quotes from Jonathan Haidt's book 'The Righteous Mind' that Scott Alexander found particularly interesting or insightful. The quotes cover a wide range of topics including human psychology, social behavior, political polarization, and the role of religion in society. Scott provides brief comments on some quotes, highlighting their relevance to his own thoughts or current societal issues. The post doesn't present a cohesive argument but rather serves as a collection of thought-provoking ideas from Haidt's work. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the mixed effectiveness of public awareness campaigns, presenting examples of both failures and successes, and analyzing possible explanations for their varying outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns, presenting examples of both failures and successes. He analyzes various theories about why some campaigns work while others don't, but ultimately concludes that it's difficult to predict the success of future campaigns. The post discusses failures like DARE, Scared Straight, and diversity training, as well as successes like anti-smoking campaigns and seatbelt promotion. Scott suggests that campaigns inflicted on captive audiences may be more likely to be counterproductive, but acknowledges that this theory doesn't fully explain all outcomes. He ends by expressing skepticism about public awareness campaigns, partly due to the implications for society if they were consistently effective. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends social psychology against conservative criticism, arguing that it correctly balances situational and personality factors in human behavior, and proposes a progressive approach that leverages human nature for positive outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a conservative perspective on social psychology, arguing that the field correctly recognizes the importance of both situation and personality in human behavior. He explains that social psychology's focus on situational effects doesn't negate the existence of personality traits or genetic influences. Scott uses an analogy of the heart as a series of levers to illustrate how the brain might be hard-coded for malleability. He then shares a hospital anecdote to demonstrate how progressive approaches can effectively use knowledge of human nature to create better outcomes. The post concludes by defining Scott's brand of progressivism as using knowledge of human nature to create structures that encourage prosocial behavior. Shorter summary

Scott argues that social psychology is often misused in political discourse, presenting counterintuitive claims to demonstrate how easily it can be manipulated to support various agendas. Longer summary

This post critiques the use of social psychology in political discourse, arguing that it's often misused to support preexisting beliefs. Scott presents six counterintuitive social psychology claims that oppose common narratives, such as media violence preventing crime and fighting stereotypes increasing prejudice. He argues these claims, while not definitively proven, are as plausible as their more commonly accepted opposites. The post highlights the dangers of using speculative social psychology to justify social engineering, emphasizing that poorly replicated short-term studies can prove almost anything. Scott concludes by advocating for caution and subtlety when applying social psychology findings to social policy. 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