Scott Alexander argues against significantly updating beliefs based on single dramatic events, advocating for consistent policies based on pre-existing probability distributions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against dramatically updating one's beliefs based on single events, even if they are significant. He contends that a good Bayesian should have distributions for various events and only make small updates when they occur. The post covers several examples, including COVID-19 origin theories, 9/11, mass shootings, sexual harassment scandals, and crises in the effective altruism movement. Scott suggests that while dramatic events can be useful for coordination and activism, they shouldn't significantly alter our understanding of underlying probabilities. He advocates for predicting distributions beforehand and maintaining consistent policies rather than overreacting to individual incidents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, and how this relates to ideas of desert and justice, sometimes conflicting with utilitarian calculations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, using three examples: an antidepressant with potential for abuse, a sexual harasser in a community, and basic income recipients who choose not to work. He explores how this concept relates to ideas of desert and justice, and how it sometimes conflicts with utilitarian calculations. The post grapples with the tension between utilitarian outcomes and the intuition that people who make bad choices should face the consequences, even if those consequences might be disproportionate to their actions. Scott considers various ways to reconcile or understand this tension, including viewing it as a misfiring heuristic, a revealed preference issue, or a necessary part of maintaining rule-based systems. Shorter summary

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 reviews and responds to comments on his survey about sexual harassment rates in different fields, addressing methodological issues and presenting additional demographic data. Longer summary

This post discusses comments and analyses related to the SSC Survey Results on Sexual Harassment Levels By Field. It covers various points raised by commenters, including attempts to reproduce the results, alternative interpretations of the data, methodological critiques, and additional factors that might influence harassment rates. The post also presents additional data on harassment rates by various demographic factors, while cautioning against drawing strong conclusions without proper statistical analysis. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes survey data showing lower sexual harassment rates in STEM fields compared to other industries, contradicting media narratives, while urging caution and calling for more research. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes data from his blog's survey on sexual harassment rates across different fields. The survey found that STEM and traditionally male-dominated fields had lower rates of reported sexual harassment compared to more verbal/personal skills-oriented fields. This contradicts media narratives about tech having unusually high harassment rates. Scott notes the strong correlation between at-work and out-of-work harassment rates across fields, suggesting differences may be more related to the people in each field rather than workplace cultures. He urges caution in interpreting the results, acknowledges potential biases, and calls for more rigorous research on this topic given the lack of good comparative data across industries. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander preregisters hypotheses for the 2018 SSC Survey, planning to explore relationships between perception, cognition, personality, and demographics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander preregisters his hypotheses for the 2018 SSC Survey. He plans to investigate various relationships between perception, cognition, personality traits, and demographic factors. Key areas of focus include replicating previous findings on perception and cognition, exploring concepts like 'first sight and second thoughts' and 'ambiguity tolerance', investigating birth order effects, and examining correlations with autism, political views, and sexual harassment. He also plans to follow up on a previous AI risk persuasion experiment. Shorter summary

The post criticizes the gendered framing of sexual harassment, presenting statistics on male victims and female perpetrators, and argues for a more balanced approach to the issue. Longer summary

This post critiques the gendered nature of sexual harassment discourse, arguing that it ignores male victims and female perpetrators. The author presents statistics showing that about 30% of sexual harassment victims are men and 20% of perpetrators are women. He argues that the media and society have framed sexual harassment as a exclusively male-on-female issue, silencing male victims and ignoring female perpetrators. The post suggests that this framing is deliberate and counterproductive, preventing a full understanding of the issue and making it harder for all victims to get justice. The author advocates for treating sexual harassment more like terrorism - as a universal problem that can be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender. Shorter summary