Scott Alexander argues that ancient Rome's welfare system was similar to modern progressive policies in causes and outcomes, despite different philosophical justifications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a critique of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, specifically addressing the claim that ancient Rome's welfare system was fundamentally different from modern progressive welfare policies. He argues that while the philosophical justifications differed, the underlying causes and outcomes were similar. Scott proposes that urbanization and economic growth lead to social changes, which then produce progressive values, rather than progressive values causing social change. He uses examples of obesity, divorce rates, and welfare systems to illustrate how social and economic conditions drive policy changes, not ideology. Scott concludes that ancient Rome can be considered an early progressive society due to its similar policies and outcomes, despite different philosophical justifications. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing focus on recent trends, class gaps, sexual norms, equality, tone, and the concept of the Cathedral. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing several key points: 1) His focus on 50-year trends rather than comparing to preindustrial society, 2) The gap between upper and lower class outcomes, 3) His arguments about sluttiness and contraception, 4) Issues around equality of opportunity vs results, 5) Tone arguments, and 6) The concept of the Cathedral. He defends some of his original points while acknowledging areas where critics made good arguments. Scott also explores why social indicators worsened from the 60s-80s but have improved since, and discusses how progressive values might be extended to lower classes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends social psychology against conservative criticism, arguing that it correctly balances situational and personality factors in human behavior, and proposes a progressive approach that leverages human nature for positive outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a conservative perspective on social psychology, arguing that the field correctly recognizes the importance of both situation and personality in human behavior. He explains that social psychology's focus on situational effects doesn't negate the existence of personality traits or genetic influences. Scott uses an analogy of the heart as a series of levers to illustrate how the brain might be hard-coded for malleability. He then shares a hospital anecdote to demonstrate how progressive approaches can effectively use knowledge of human nature to create better outcomes. The post concludes by defining Scott's brand of progressivism as using knowledge of human nature to create structures that encourage prosocial behavior. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses historical data to refute the Reactionary claim that modern society increases war, showing instead that violence has decreased significantly in progressive eras. Longer summary

Scott Alexander rebuts the Reactionary claim that modern society causes increased war and instability. He presents statistical evidence showing that wars and violence have significantly decreased in modern times, especially since World War II. The post examines historical data on war casualties, finding that the most progressive periods in history are also the most peaceful, while periods favored by Reactionaries (like the 1600s) were among the deadliest. Scott argues that even accounting for technological advances in warfare, the past was generally more violent. He also points out that in recent times, wars are mostly limited to less progressive countries. The post concludes that as the world has become more progressive over the past 70 years, conflicts and deaths from conflict have dropped precipitously. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary 'uncanny valley' argument for dictatorship, highlighting its practical flaws and drawing parallels with Communist regimes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the 'uncanny valley' argument used by Reactionaries to justify dictatorship. He argues that while uncanny valleys may exist in some areas, the Reactionaries are unfairly comparing a gritty Progressive reality to an idealized Reactionary thought experiment. Scott points out the practical difficulties in establishing a perfectly secure dictatorship, especially given current popular support. He draws parallels to Communist regimes, suggesting that Reactionary governments would likely face similar challenges and compromises, ultimately becoming oppressive in their attempts to maintain power against societal trends towards Progressivism. Shorter summary