Plutocracy Isn’t About Money
The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings.
The independent Scott Alexander archive
Essays, arguments, and unexpected connections. An independent archive of Slate Star Codex, Astral Codex Ten, and LessWrong.
The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings.
Scott Alexander examines studies linking parental age to psychiatric disorders in children, revealing that the father's age at first child, not at conception, is the key factor.
Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', praising its approach to arguing against racism and its display of epistemic virtue.
Scott Alexander critiques standard psychiatric responses to psychotic patients and proposes more honest, nuanced alternatives based on individual patient circumstances.
Scott argues that focusing on easily debunked fringe beliefs when discussing rationality can be counterproductive, potentially hampering people's ability to doubt their own beliefs and engage in critical thinking.
A collection of interesting links from April 2014 covering science, culture, and quirky news, with Scott's brief commentary on each.
Scott Alexander speculates about mental feedback loops, their relation to various disorders, and how increased self-awareness might accidentally worsen them.
Scott provides answers to a dermatology quiz, discussing skin cancer risks, a quiz correction, and the surprising effectiveness of Botox in treating depression.
Scott presents a dermatology pop quiz with three statements, asking readers to identify and explain the two true ones.
Scott gives a housekeeping update on his blog, covering his work schedule, a fellow blogger's status, comment policies, and medical advice requests.
Scott Alexander shares his new OKCupid profile, which consists solely of a link to his blog, creating a meta-joke about online dating and self-promotion.
Scott Alexander examines various anti-wheat claims and pro-wheat evidence, concluding that while some concerns exist, current evidence generally supports wheat consumption for most people.
Scott Alexander criticizes a study on e-cigarette effectiveness for quitting smoking, explaining potential sampling bias that could skew the results.
Scott Alexander discusses how people tend to seek advice that reinforces their existing tendencies and proposes considering the opposite of appealing advice.
Scott shares and comments on a diverse collection of news items and interesting links from March 2014, covering topics from medical advances to political issues and quirky stories.
Scott Alexander examines how the 'typical mind fallacy' might lead some closeted gay individuals to support anti-gay positions, potentially influencing broader anti-gay arguments.
Scott Alexander explores the idea that people might be missing universal human experiences without realizing it, using examples from various senses and personal anecdotes.
Scott Alexander examines the process of 'crystallizing patterns' in thinking, discussing its benefits and potential pitfalls across various domains.
Scott Alexander reflects on five years of Less Wrong, highlighting the community's intellectual progress in various areas of rationality and philosophy.
Scott presents a creative reinterpretation of the Bible using palindromes to represent key themes and stories from each major section.
Scott Alexander creates a political quiz to distinguish between object-level and meta-level thinking, based on consistent application of principles across different scenarios.
A collection of interesting links from March 2014 covering science, politics, law, religion and culture, with Scott's commentary on each.
Scott Alexander reviews 'The Perfect Health Diet', praising its science-based approach but criticizing its tendency to ignore contrary evidence and present controversial claims as settled science.
Start with a reader favorite, or follow an idea somewhere unexpected.