Scott Alexander argues that public outrage over specific misdeeds is not arbitrary, but a strategic way to enforce important social norms with limited resources. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Bryan Caplan's article about the arbitrariness of public outrage, proposing a different theory. He argues that people get upset over violations of established norms because it's an efficient way to use limited enforcement resources. Scott uses examples of police prioritizing certain crimes and the international response to chemical weapons to illustrate his point. He extends this reasoning to explain public outrage over sexual harassment and suggests that enforcing taboos against clearly defined bad behaviors can be more effective than trying to prevent all forms of misconduct. The post concludes by applying this logic to the case of China's treatment of Uighurs, arguing that strongly enforcing the norm against putting minorities in concentration camps can have broader preventative effects. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a study showing positive effects of early intervention on at-risk children, but questions its policy implications due to high costs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a study on early intervention programs for at-risk children, which showed positive effects on various outcomes at age 25. The study, a randomized controlled trial, found that intensive interventions costing $60,000 per child reduced the odds of developing psychiatric disorders, substance abuse problems, and engaging in criminal behavior. While the results are scientifically interesting, Scott points out some limitations and questions the cost-effectiveness from a policy perspective. He notes that the intervention didn't affect all outcomes equally and that the high cost might not justify the benefits when compared to existing educational spending. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores social impact bonds as a potential way to use corporate greed to solve social problems more efficiently than current government programs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses social impact bonds, a system where corporations invest in solving social problems and get paid by the government if they succeed. He compares this to prediction markets and sees it as a way to use greed for good ends. The post explores potential applications in healthcare, education, and crime prevention. Scott also discusses the risks and potential for abuse in such systems, but ultimately sees them as a promising way to address social issues more efficiently than current government programs. Shorter summary