Scott Alexander defends Effective Altruism by presenting it as a 'tower of assumptions,' arguing that critics often miss its core principles of systematic giving and maximizing impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses criticisms of Effective Altruism (EA), arguing that many critiques miss the core principles of the movement. He presents EA as a 'tower of assumptions,' where even if higher-level ideas are disputed, the fundamental concepts remain valid. The post starts with hypothetical responses to common EA criticisms, then explains the core of EA using the Drowning Child scenario. Scott emphasizes that even if specific EA ideas or institutions are criticized, the basic tenets of systematic giving and maximizing impact remain important. He concludes by asserting that personal moral obligation is the most crucial aspect of EA, beyond debates about the movement's status or specific strategies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about criticism of EA, addressing various points about scientific paradigms, types of criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about criticism of EA. He addresses various points raised by commenters, including discussions about the nature of paradigm shifts in science, the value of specific vs. general criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Scott clarifies that he wasn't arguing EA only wants non-threatening criticism, but rather that some organizations genuinely want to improve. He also reflects on the challenges of distinguishing between expressing opinions and evangelizing, especially for philosophies that make unusual moral demands. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes EA's approach to criticism, arguing that specific, targeted critiques are more valuable than vague, paradigmatic ones for driving real change. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the phenomenon of Effective Altruism's (EA) seemingly excessive openness to criticism. He argues that while EA appears to welcome criticism, much of it is paradigmatic and vague, leading to little actionable change. He contrasts this with specific, targeted criticisms that actually challenge individuals and practices, which he believes are more likely to lead to real improvements. Scott uses examples from psychiatry and EA to illustrate his point, suggesting that embracing vague criticisms can lead to inefficiency and a move away from precise, effective practices. He concludes by discussing the nature of paradigm shifts, arguing that they arise from specific anomalies rather than broad, ideological critiques. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a collection of negative and often insulting testimonials about himself and his blog Slate Star Codex, showcasing criticism of his writing, personality, and perceived ideologies. Longer summary

This post is a collection of negative testimonials about Scott Alexander and his blog Slate Star Codex. The testimonials range from critical comments to outright insults, covering various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and perceived ideological stances. The post is presented in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, with Scott showcasing these negative comments about himself and his work. The testimonials touch on topics such as politics, rationality, autism, and Scott's writing style, often in harsh or offensive language. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends rationalists against common criticisms, arguing that the movement is self-aware and actively tries to avoid past mistakes while striving for improvement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to common criticisms of rationalists, economists, and psychiatrists. He argues that these criticisms are often outdated or based on misunderstandings, and that the fields in question are usually well aware of their own shortcomings. He focuses on the rationalist community, explaining that they actively try to avoid the mistakes of past movements, are aware of potential pitfalls, and strive for constant self-improvement and error minimization. Scott emphasizes that while the rationalist movement is likely still making mistakes, they are new ones rather than the obvious errors that critics often assume. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains his defensiveness as a response to unfair critiques that risk pushing groups into irredeemable disrepute, and grapples with how to address this issue. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his recent defensiveness towards critiques of rationalism and effective altruism. He explains that his defensiveness stems from a fear of groups being unfairly portrayed and pushed into an 'event horizon' of irredeemable toxicity. The post outlines how this process works, using Christianity as a hypothetical example, and how it can lead to the degradation of reasonable discourse. Scott struggles with the dilemma of either constantly defending against unfair critiques (and appearing defensive) or risking his preferred groups sliding into disrepute. He expresses a desire for a third option that avoids both these outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that polyamory's low black representation is part of a broader pattern across many subcultures, proposing general explanations and criticizing how this issue is often weaponized. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that polyamory has a problem with underrepresentation of black people. He argues this is part of a broader pattern where many subcultures and interest groups have low black representation, listing numerous examples. He proposes several general factors that likely contribute to this pattern, such as affluence requirements, education levels, and cultural factors. Scott criticizes how underrepresentation is often used disingenuously to attack groups, and expresses frustration that polyamory is being singled out for criticism when the pattern is so widespread. Shorter summary