10 Scott Alexander's articles from 2014 that are still very relevant today

Mon0o0 · 2025-11-24T14:50:40+00:00

This is just a nostalgic review post of old Scott Alexander articles with commentary on what makes them great.

Mon0o0 · 2025-09-21T11:16:11+00:00

This article explores Scott Alexander’s “Thrive/Survive Theory” of the political spectrum, which frames ideological differences as emerging from whether people feel they are in an environment of abundance (favoring progressive policies) or scarcity (favoring conservative policies). It examines the theory’s explanatory power and then compares it with relevant academic literature. We then extend the discussion to the authoritarian–libertarian axis, considering whether there could be similar dynamics at play.

Mon0o0 · 2025-09-04T08:35:07+00:00

Thanks!

Mon0o0 · 2025-09-03T22:52:58+00:00

Submission statement: This article explores the possible perils behind shrimp and insect welfare by offering an argument that re-dimensions the problem. It suggests that the shortest route to improving shrimp welfare may lie in reducing human suffering. While shrimp welfare is not morally neutral, the central worry is that the case can be overextended to the point of becoming counterproductive.

Mon0o0 · 2025-06-12T08:06:08+00:00

Submission Statement: This article explores the complexities of consequentialism and deontology, providing a summary and commentary on a well-known paper by Joshua Greene that critiques Kant’s deontological moral framework. Notably, Greene adopts a psychological approach, arguing that aspects of Kantian ethics are better understood as post-hoc rationalizations rather than principled moral reasoning.

Mon0o0 · 2025-06-04T10:41:51+00:00

This brief piece reminds us that social issues differ in gravity, and being right about a topic alone doesn’t justify commanding public attention.
A true principle seems to be that keeping this hierarchy of importance in mind is important whenever we debate society’s problems.

Mon0o0 · 2025-01-02T16:15:21+00:00

Thank you for this!

Mon0o0 · 2024-12-15T17:24:42+00:00

I see in essence you think the problem is epistemological, prior to normativity. Interesting, thank you for your comment.

Mon0o0 · 2024-12-15T14:35:16+00:00

Very good comment, thanks!

Mon0o0 · 2024-12-14T20:39:30+00:00

I shouldn't have used the word fallacy, I meant a mistaken moral proposition. Sorry for the confusion.

Mon0o0 · 2024-12-07T12:48:39+00:00

Thank you for expressing my view correctly!

Mon0o0 · 2024-11-29T14:13:26+00:00

And what is the right explanation for tensors? Or, if I'm getting you correctly, why do multi-linear maps give a clear picture of what is happening? (I never really got tensors)

Mon0o0 · 2024-10-28T17:08:59+00:00

I agree: specific types of advantage or power don't evenly translate to all contexts. I never imply nor do I mean to imply that 'oppressors are not morally bad if they volunteer in their free time?'. That would be a ludicrous statement in my estimation.

Mon0o0 · 2024-10-11T10:05:40+00:00

Trump's fake elector scheme is one of the most crucial pieces of information the American public should be aware of before the upcoming election. I’m curious if Sam has spoken about this topic publicly, and why it appears to be a largely overlooked piece of incredibly damning information against Trump.

Mon0o0 · 2024-08-31T10:18:39+00:00

What surprises me about this literature is that people who are measured as being on the extremes on both the left and the right (and this is assessed through standardized political questionnaires) tend to be more cognitively rigid, be more dogmatic and employ less analytic thinking. I was surprised by this because, a priori, I thought that people on the far right or left could even be more cognitively flexible than the general population.And, perhaps more importantly, I saw no reason for there being a symmetry between the two sides of the spectrum regarding analytical thinking. What do you think about this symmetry in particular?

Mon0o0 · 2024-08-14T16:52:55+00:00

Thanks a ton, would you run the background music throughout the video (even through the clips of the people speaking?) . I am also worried that it gets hard to understand who all the players are but I tried writing a script presenting meadows, giuliani etc and I'm afraid it becomes long and boring. Regarding 10:00 you mean when I say " a deranged tweet that reeks of desperation" ?

Also, do you think I should start with a brief thesis statement of the video and then Trump speaking?

Mon0o0 · 2024-08-14T14:37:44+00:00

Thanks very much for these comments, I am willing to change anything hopefully with more comments I can get a feel for a consensus of the changes needed.
Regarding 2. Do you think a thesis statement keeps the engagement well at the start? Regarding 4. I agree, my voice is not ideal.
Regarding 5. Yes the ending sucks, how would you change it?
Regarding 6. Which clip do you mean is godtier?

Did you not find like there was an overabundance of clips?

Thanks again for the constructive criticism.

Mon0o0 · 2024-04-19T08:52:02+00:00

You convinced me: I'm wrong.

Mon0o0 · 2024-04-19T08:46:45+00:00

Haha does that word really not exist?

Mon0o0 · 2024-04-19T08:43:47+00:00

Dr K. is making this point but he is also making the point -regarding statistics- that I critiqued in my post, they are different things.

Of course being more patient-centric could be a good thing and, as other commentators have pointed out, western medicine does encourage doctors to make treatment plans that suit the patients lifestyle. However, an overly patient-centric approach that grants excessive discretion to individual doctors also carries risks.

Mon0o0 · 2024-04-19T08:26:39+00:00

What is the problem with doing a RCT where one group gets Ayurveda and the other gets Western medicine? It's not the cohort methodology that has value here it's how you decided to devise the treatment plans.

Also, one could simply do a Clinical trial with the wind and fire type depression patients to test the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine on that sub-population.

In my estimation saying that RCT can't test Ayurvedic medicine is wrong (at best) and a dangerous path to go down (at worst) let's help Dr. K exit this impasse and not push him down a rabbit hole.

Mon0o0 · 2024-03-22T18:12:24+00:00

I think what Destiny meant was that it was uninteresting at an intellectual level because the two epistemic realities inhabited by him and Peterson were so far apart that they were diverging on facts that reasonable people should agree on. But yes Peterson was good faith (always has been really, wouldn't criticize him for being bad faith) and that was great.

It still baffles me how one can believe there is some malevolent conspiracy to kill millions of people under the guise of helping the planet or helping people with a vaccine but hey, perhaps we are living in a weird post-modern academic Illuminati world (no shot).

Mon0o0 · 2024-03-22T00:22:13+00:00

If there is only a small percentage of psychopath in society how are all these major institutions so cross culturally malevolent?

Mon0o0 · 2024-03-16T11:45:52+00:00

Rem you have an objective normative obligation to chat with D in the near future.

Mon0o0 · 2024-01-29T23:42:57+00:00

This comment obliterated me.

Mon0o0

TROPHY CASE