Scott Alexander uses thought experiments to explore how people form coalitions and support networks, relating these to real-world social and political dynamics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores social dynamics through thought experiments involving castaways on a lifeboat and various 'backscratchers clubs'. He discusses how people form coalitions, make decisions in extreme situations, and how ideologies and social movements can serve as covers for mutual support networks. The post examines the formation of in-groups, the role of Schelling points in decision-making, and how these dynamics might relate to real-world phenomena like racism, nationalism, and establishment power structures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his 'Against Murderism' post against Nathan Robinson's criticism, arguing that Robinson misrepresented his arguments and ignored key parts of the original post. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Nathan Robinson's criticism of his 'Against Murderism' post. He argues that Robinson misrepresented his argument by ignoring key parts of the original post where Scott had already addressed the counterarguments Robinson raised. Scott points out that he had extensively discussed the 'Definition By Consequences' and 'Definition By Motive' concepts in his original post, contrary to Robinson's claim that Scott was unaware of these ideas. Scott also provides examples from Current Affairs, Robinson's own magazine, that contradict Robinson's assertion that progressives don't portray racists as monsters. Finally, Scott expresses frustration at being accused of refusing to dialogue with political opponents, revealing that he had previously reached out to Robinson for a private discussion, which Robinson declined due to time constraints. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics and governance. Mistake theorists view political issues as problems to be solved through debate and expertise, while conflict theorists see politics as a struggle between opposing groups. The post explores how these perspectives differ in their approach to free speech, racism, democracy, and revolution. Scott reflects on his own tendency towards mistake theory and considers the merits of conflict theory, especially in light of current political realities. He concludes that while he still leans towards mistake theory, he recognizes the need to engage more seriously with conflict theory perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as an oversimplified explanation for complex issues, arguing for a more nuanced approach to understanding and addressing societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as a catch-all term that conflates different motives and beliefs, leading to ineffective discourse and polarization. He argues that treating racism as a simple explanation for complex issues prevents understanding root causes and finding effective solutions. The post uses an analogy of 'murderism' to illustrate how this approach is flawed, and suggests that breaking down racist actions into non-racist motives can lead to better outcomes. Scott emphasizes the importance of maintaining liberal values and open dialogue to prevent societal breakdown. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his past writings on Trump, emphasizing his consistent criticism of Trump while refuting accusations that he underestimated Trump's racism or missed hidden signals. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends his past posts about Trump in light of recent criticism. He emphasizes that he has never been a Trump supporter and has consistently criticized him. He addresses two main points of contention: First, his stance against overinterpreting politicians' statements as secret codes (dog whistles), arguing that Trump's recent Muslim ban was openly stated policy, not a hidden agenda. Second, he reiterates that his post 'You Are Still Crying Wolf' acknowledged Trump would likely ban Muslims, but argued this stemmed from cognitive bias rather than white supremacy. Scott maintains that while Trump is bad and often motivated by everyday racism, he is not an ideological white supremacist. He encourages critics to make their own predictions about Trump's presidency and compare them to his own recorded predictions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that framing issues like racial bias in the justice system as 'racism' can be counterproductive, and suggests more precise terminology to focus on actual problems and solutions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of framing issues correctly, particularly when it comes to racial bias in the criminal justice system. He argues that using terms like 'racism' can be misleading and counterproductive, as it often leads to heated debates rather than constructive solutions. Scott emphasizes the need to distinguish between direct racial bias and indirect effects of socioeconomic factors. He uses examples from gender wage gap discussions and a hypothetical town scenario to illustrate how framing can affect the interpretation of data and the proposed solutions. The post concludes by suggesting that focusing on specific policy issues rather than broad accusations of racism might be more effective in addressing systemic problems. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines political tribalism in America, arguing that people often claim tolerance while harboring strong prejudices against their outgroups. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of outgroups and ingroups, arguing that people often claim to be tolerant of all groups except their perceived outgroup. He suggests that in modern American society, political tribes (Red and Blue) have become more significant than traditional demographic divisions. The essay analyzes how these tribes interact, criticize each other, and sometimes engage in self-criticism that may actually be veiled attacks on the opposing tribe. Alexander ultimately reflects on his own biases and the difficulty of genuine self-criticism and tolerance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques social justice terminology, arguing that words like 'privilege' and 'racism' are used as weapons rather than tools for understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of social justice terminology, particularly words like 'privilege' and 'racism'. He argues that these terms are often used in a way that differs from their stated definitions, serving as weapons to shut down debate rather than as tools for understanding. He uses the concept of 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' to explain how social justice advocates switch between defensible and indefensible positions. The post ends by comparing this behavior to a hypothetical government conspiracy, suggesting that the way these terms are used reveals their true nature as tools of social control. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', praising its approach to arguing against racism and its display of epistemic virtue. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', an essay by blogger The Prussian on SkepticInk. He finds it astounding for several reasons: it's good enough to warrant specific criticisms, the author's political leanings are unclear, it aims to actually convince people, and it might be one of the first pieces Scott has read that argues against racism rather than just condemning it. Scott praises the essay's approach as showing epistemic virtue, though he doesn't agree with everything in it. He encourages readers to give The Prussian more traffic for this ambitious work. Shorter summary

Scott argues that social psychology is often misused in political discourse, presenting counterintuitive claims to demonstrate how easily it can be manipulated to support various agendas. Longer summary

This post critiques the use of social psychology in political discourse, arguing that it's often misused to support preexisting beliefs. Scott presents six counterintuitive social psychology claims that oppose common narratives, such as media violence preventing crime and fighting stereotypes increasing prejudice. He argues these claims, while not definitively proven, are as plausible as their more commonly accepted opposites. The post highlights the dangers of using speculative social psychology to justify social engineering, emphasizing that poorly replicated short-term studies can prove almost anything. Scott concludes by advocating for caution and subtlety when applying social psychology findings to social policy. Shorter summary

Scott presents evidence for the reality and high economic costs of racial and gender discrimination, arguing that fighting prejudice is important and potentially effective. Longer summary

This post argues against Reactionary politics by defending the importance of fighting racism and sexism. It presents evidence from controlled experiments showing significant discrimination against minorities in job hiring, housing, and other areas. The post then estimates the economic costs of discrimination in the US to be at least $438 billion per year, comparable to the costs of major diseases. It concludes that even small successes in reducing racism and sexism could have large economic benefits, and that while many social justice efforts may be ineffective, there is potential for evidence-based approaches to make meaningful progress. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that generalizing male violence to all men is problematic, drawing parallels with racist generalizations about crime. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques arguments that generalize male violence to all men, drawing a parallel with how similar arguments about black people and crime would be considered racist. He analyzes statistics on crime rates by race and gender, showing that while there are disproportions, it's unfair and counterproductive to treat all members of a group as dangerous. The post suggests ways to discuss violence and rape awareness more constructively, without unfairly stigmatizing entire groups. Scott emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that the vast majority of men are not violent, and argues that overgeneralizing can be harmful both to men and to the goal of reducing violence against women. Shorter summary