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 analyzes Trump's likely PR strategy as president, predicting a focus on symbolic 'job-saving' victories that will be effective in shaping public perception despite limited real impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concern about Trump's PR strategy as president, focusing on highly publicized 'victories' in keeping jobs in the US. He argues that these will be largely symbolic, not scalable, and potentially corrupt, but effective in shaping public perception. Scott compares this to Batman's approach of personally fighting crime rather than using his resources for systemic change. He predicts that this strategy will be a central part of Trump's public relations over the next year, despite not significantly impacting overall job numbers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that, contrary to his reputation as an isolationist, Trump's statements suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions than Clinton, who represents a more predictable foreign policy approach. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines claims that Trump is an isolationist and safer choice than Clinton regarding foreign policy. He argues that Trump's statements and past positions suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions. Alexander analyzes Trump's statements on ISIS, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, finding many hawkish positions. He discusses Trump's criticism of NATO and international trade agreements, suggesting this could destabilize the post-WWII peace. Alexander then examines Clinton's positions, arguing they are more moderate and predictable. He concludes that while Clinton's foreign policy isn't perfect, she represents a lower-variance, more stable choice compared to the unpredictability of Trump's potential actions. Shorter summary