Scott Alexander satirizes media coverage of Effective Altruism by applying similar reporting tactics to other causes and movements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical piece mimicking media reporting on Effective Altruism by applying similar rhetorical techniques to other topics and movements. He creates fictional news stories about climate change, political activism, drunk driving prevention, and other causes, using logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and sensationalism to mock how media often portrays Effective Altruism. The post highlights how these reporting tactics can unfairly discredit or misrepresent important causes and movements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how to navigate bias in media and expert opinions through understanding the unwritten rules of misrepresentation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'bounded distrust' in media and expert opinions. He argues that while many news sources and experts are biased, there are unwritten rules about how far they will go in misrepresenting facts. Understanding these rules allows people to extract useful information even from biased sources. He uses examples from FOX News, Washington Post, and scientific research to illustrate how people can navigate bias and misinformation. The post concludes by acknowledging that this skill of discerning truth from biased sources is not universal, leading to a divide between 'savvy' and 'clueless' people in their trust of institutions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a curated list of 37 diverse and interesting links, covering topics from historical events to recent scientific studies, with brief summaries and occasional commentary. Longer summary

This post is a collection of 37 links to various articles, studies, and interesting facts across a wide range of topics. Scott Alexander presents these links with brief summaries or comments, covering subjects from historical events and scientific studies to economic theories and technological advancements. The tone is informative and sometimes humorous, with Scott occasionally offering personal opinions or admitting to previous errors. The links span diverse areas including politics, psychology, economics, technology, and culture. Shorter summary

The post criticizes the gendered framing of sexual harassment, presenting statistics on male victims and female perpetrators, and argues for a more balanced approach to the issue. Longer summary

This post critiques the gendered nature of sexual harassment discourse, arguing that it ignores male victims and female perpetrators. The author presents statistics showing that about 30% of sexual harassment victims are men and 20% of perpetrators are women. He argues that the media and society have framed sexual harassment as a exclusively male-on-female issue, silencing male victims and ignoring female perpetrators. The post suggests that this framing is deliberate and counterproductive, preventing a full understanding of the issue and making it harder for all victims to get justice. The author advocates for treating sexual harassment more like terrorism - as a universal problem that can be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender. 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 critiques media reporting of scientific studies, showing how the same study can lead to vastly different headlines and interpretations, often misrepresenting the actual findings. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques media reporting of scientific studies, focusing on two examples: a study about parental time spent with children and another about weight discrimination. He shows how different media outlets can present the same study with vastly different, even contradictory headlines. In the weight discrimination study, he points out how the actual findings were much less significant than the media portrayed, with many important measures showing no discrimination. Scott argues that the process from conducting a study to its media reporting allows for too many 'degrees of freedom', resulting in headlines that may not accurately reflect the study's actual findings. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of reading beyond headlines and abstracts to understand scientific studies accurately. Shorter summary

The post uses a fabricated narrative about cardiologists to illustrate the Chinese Robber Fallacy and its role in media bias, emphasizing the importance of context in interpreting negative stories about any group. Longer summary

This post discusses the Chinese Robber Fallacy and its implications for media bias. The author begins with a satirical section presenting numerous examples of cardiologists committing various crimes and unethical acts, creating the impression of widespread issues in the profession. The second part reveals this as a demonstration of how easy it is to create a false narrative about any group using selective examples. The author then explores how this fallacy applies to media coverage of issues like police brutality and sexism in tech, emphasizing the importance of understanding base rates and population sizes when interpreting such stories. The post concludes by revealing that the initial section about cardiologists was entirely fabricated to illustrate the point. Shorter summary

Scott reviews 'Manufacturing Consent' by Chomsky and Herman, analyzing its arguments about media bias and US foreign policy atrocities. Longer summary

This post reviews Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's book 'Manufacturing Consent', which argues that the US media has a strong conservative bias despite the liberal leanings of most journalists. The book proposes five mechanisms for this bias and presents case studies of US military interference in Third World countries. Scott analyzes the book's arguments, noting some issues with bias and cherry-picking of examples, but concludes that its core thesis about media bias and US foreign policy atrocities is largely compelling. He discusses how the book changed his understanding of historical events like the Iraq War and explores its relevance to modern media dynamics. 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 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