The review critiques Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions while highlighting flaws in its moral foundations theory and political predictions. Longer summary

This review critiques Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind', praising its contributions to moral psychology while highlighting significant flaws. The reviewer appreciates Haidt's defense of group selection and moral intuitionism but criticizes his confusion between normative and descriptive claims. The review argues that Haidt's moral foundations theory fails to predict political alignments just a decade after publication, suggesting that political tribalism drives moral intuitions rather than vice versa. Despite these criticisms, the reviewer recommends the book for its thought-provoking nature and its role in advancing empiricism in social science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential negative consequences of invoking free speech to defend controversial speakers or ideas. He argues that while free speech should protect unpopular views, repeatedly using it to defend offensive content may lead to a backlash against the principle itself. The post compares respect for free speech to a commons that can be depleted if overused, especially in the context of growing partisanship. Scott warns that associating free speech primarily with conservative causes could turn it into a partisan issue, alienating liberals. He suggests that to preserve free speech, it should be invoked to defend liberal causes as well, preventing it from becoming solely associated with controversial right-wing figures. Shorter summary

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes. Longer summary

This post discusses the counterintuitive success of conservative religious movements compared to liberal ones, exploring the idea that demanding commitments and strict rules can actually strengthen religious communities. Scott examines this concept in the context of atheist religion-substitutes, noting their tendency to avoid placing rules on members. He contrasts this with the approach of Giving What We Can, which requires a specific commitment from members. The post concludes by considering the potential of 'nomic' subcultures based on rule-following as a possible direction for secular community-building. Shorter summary