How to avoid getting lost reading Scott Alexander and his 1500+ blog posts? This unaffiliated fan website lets you sort and search through the whole codex. Enjoy!

See also Top Posts and All Tags.

Minutes:
Blog:
Year:
Show all filters
2 posts found
Oct 08, 2018
ssc
10 min 1,179 words 533 comments podcast
Scott Alexander analyzes a survey on readers' estimated probabilities of Kavanaugh's guilt, finding significant partisan differences and no clear consensus even with probabilistic thinking. Longer summary
Scott Alexander conducted a survey asking readers to estimate the probability of Judge Kavanaugh being guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. The post analyzes the results, breaking them down by political party, gender, and background knowledge. The average probability given was 52.64%, with significant partisan differences. The survey also explored whether respondents thought the accusations were sufficient to reject Kavanaugh's nomination. Scott notes that even when encouraged to think probabilistically, people's responses still showed strong partisan biases, and there was no clear consensus even among politically neutral respondents. Shorter summary
Jul 26, 2017
ssc
6 min 764 words 294 comments podcast
The post argues against the idea that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. case is responsible for credentialism in employment, presenting evidence that the issue is more complex and widespread. Longer summary
This post challenges the common belief that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. Supreme Court case is responsible for the rise of credentialism in employment. The author presents several arguments against this notion: 1) The Griggs decision applies equally to college degrees and IQ tests, yet degrees are still widely used. 2) Other countries without similar laws face similar credentialism issues. 3) It's legal and possible for employers to ask for SAT scores (which approximate IQ tests), but this practice hasn't caught on. 4) Fields with standardized tests (like medicine) still heavily rely on credentials. The author concludes that the roots of credentialism likely lie deeper than this single court decision. Shorter summary