How to explore Scott Alexander's work 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
3 posts found
Mar 15, 2021
acx
17 min 2,379 words 201 comments 109 likes podcast (16 min)
Scott Alexander examines Matt Yglesias's public predictions and discusses the implications for evaluating pundits and the future of prediction-based journalism. Longer summary
Scott Alexander discusses Matt Yglesias's recent foray into making public predictions, a practice uncommon among pundits. He compares Yglesias's predictions to those on Metaculus and reflects on the broader implications for journalism and punditry. Scott explores the challenges of fairly evaluating pundits based on predictions, the artificiality of predetermined prediction sets, and the disconnect between prediction accuracy and valuable commentary. He suggests that pundits should make predictions directly related to their claims and proposes using prediction markets as a benchmark for pundit performance. Shorter summary
Feb 07, 2021
acx
4 min 549 words 293 comments 115 likes podcast (6 min)
Scott explores why journalists struggle to write controversial articles about topics like COVID-19 due to experts' reluctance to be interviewed. Longer summary
Scott discusses the challenges journalists face when writing articles about controversial topics like COVID-19. He explains that experts are often hesitant to give interviews for fear of being misquoted or having their nuanced opinions stripped of context. This leads to a situation where it's easier to produce 'illegible knowledge' (like experts posting opinions on Twitter) than 'legible knowledge' (like well-sourced newspaper articles). Scott suggests this contributes to gaps between 'canonical knowledge' in prestigious news outlets and what one learns from following research closely. Shorter summary
Feb 05, 2021
acx
33 min 4,566 words 489 comments 318 likes podcast (30 min)
Scott Alexander discusses the trade-offs between accuracy and liability in medical information, extending the analysis to public health experts and the role of expertise in society. Longer summary
Scott Alexander explores the challenges of providing accurate medical information online, using his own experience with a psychiatry database and comparing it to WebMD. He argues that larger, more legitimate sources like WebMD and government agencies often provide less useful information due to liability concerns and political pressures. The post then extends this analysis to public health experts like Dr. Fauci, suggesting that while they may not always provide the best advice, they serve an important role as 'legibly mediocre' sources of information in a complex system. Scott concludes that while the current system of expertise is flawed, it's better than alternatives and deserves some appreciation. Shorter summary