Scott Alexander examines Nietzsche's concepts of 'master morality' and 'slave morality', analyzing their modern manifestations and exploring potential compromises between these opposing moral frameworks. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concepts of 'master morality' and 'slave morality' introduced by Nietzsche, analyzing their manifestations in modern society and various ideologies. He discusses how these moral frameworks are reflected in figures like Ayn Rand, Andrew Tate, and Matt Yglesias, as well as in movements like effective altruism. The post examines the tensions between these moral systems and attempts to find a balance or transcendence of the dichotomy, ultimately suggesting that a cyclical, civilization-building approach might offer a meaningful compromise. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that increasing housing density in a city may actually increase local prices due to induced demand, while lowering prices nationally. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges Matt Yglesias's claim that building more houses lowers local house prices. He argues that while this may be true on a marginal level, looking at the extremes shows a different picture. The densest US cities (New York, San Francisco) are also the most expensive, while the least dense areas have the lowest prices. Scott proposes that increasing density in a city like Oakland would likely increase its prices due to induced demand, as it becomes more attractive to people seeking big city amenities. He suggests that building more houses would lower prices nationwide, but not necessarily in the specific city where construction occurs, creating a coordination problem for housing policy. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines which US political party has become more extreme faster, concluding Democrats have moved further left on policy since 1994, while results vary for other aspects of extremism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the question of which political party in the US has become more extreme faster, breaking it down into four sub-questions. He concludes that Democrats have moved further left on policy positions since 1994 than Republicans have moved right, based on survey data and first principles. On divergence from ordinary Americans, he calls it a tie. Regarding ideological purity, Republicans show more polarization in Congress, but it's unclear for average voters. Scott avoids declaring a winner on which party has become crazier in worldview and messaging. He argues the policy position change is most important, supporting the meme that Democrats have moved more extreme, while noting other interpretations could point to Republicans. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines Matt Yglesias's public predictions and discusses the implications for evaluating pundits and the future of prediction-based journalism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Matt Yglesias's recent foray into making public predictions, a practice uncommon among pundits. He compares Yglesias's predictions to those on Metaculus and reflects on the broader implications for journalism and punditry. Scott explores the challenges of fairly evaluating pundits based on predictions, the artificiality of predetermined prediction sets, and the disconnect between prediction accuracy and valuable commentary. He suggests that pundits should make predictions directly related to their claims and proposes using prediction markets as a benchmark for pundit performance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against harshly criticizing various groups often mocked by both left and right, emphasizing nuanced thinking and engagement with evidence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against dismissing or mocking several groups often criticized by both left and right-wing commentators. He defends celebrities speaking out against Trump, people comparing politics to Harry Potter, Hamilton fans, Vox, Matt Yglesias, pundits who failed to predict Trump's victory, and those concerned about Russian election interference. The post uses a mix of logical arguments, personal anecdotes, and humor to make the case that these groups don't deserve harsh criticism, while also acknowledging some of their flaws. Scott emphasizes the importance of nuanced thinking, avoiding sweeping conclusions from limited data, and engaging with evidence rather than dismissing concerns outright. Shorter summary