A thread through the archive
Essays tagged “contra”. Follow an idea across the archive.
Scott defends liberalism against claims it has failed by explaining that happiness scales logarithmically with income, so our 225x wealth increase since medieval times correctly predicts the 3-point happiness gain we've actually seen, and recent declines are due to COVID rather than systemic failure.
Scott argues that aesthetic discussions wrongly conflate sensory delight with novelty and context, and that modern art's obsession with being part of a historical conversation has led to the abandonment of beauty in favor of mechanical innovation.
Scott explains why true democracy requires more than just winning elections - it needs a complex system of checks and balances to ensure future elections remain fair and free.
Scott Alexander refutes Stephen Skolnick's theory that schizophrenia is caused by gut microbes rather than genetics, showing why the evidence better supports schizophrenia being a complex genetic neurodevelopmental disorder.
Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders.
Scott Alexander refutes Freddie deBoer's argument against expecting major events in our lifetimes, presenting a more nuanced approach to estimating such probabilities.
Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories.
Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his 2021 ivermectin analysis, acknowledging some errors but maintaining his conclusion that ivermectin likely doesn't work for COVID-19.
Scott Alexander argues for generally believing reports of unusual mental experiences, countering skepticism about unfalsifiable internal states.
Scott Alexander argues against Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, discussing the potential for future AI capabilities and the nature of human intelligence.
Scott critiques evolutionary explanations for suitor-parent disagreements in mate choice, proposing that suitors use innate instincts while parents rely on reasoning, leading to different preferences.
Scott Alexander critiques Ben Hoffman's arguments about Vitamin D dosing, maintaining that it is primarily a bone-related chemical with limited evidence for other benefits.
Scott Alexander summarizes a debate between Yudkowsky and Christiano on whether AI progress will be gradual or sudden, exploring their key arguments and implications.
Scott Alexander argues against Erik Hoel's claim that the decline of 'aristocratic tutoring' explains the perceived lack of modern geniuses, offering alternative explanations and counterexamples.
Scott Alexander reviews a dialogue between Yudkowsky and Ngo on AI alignment difficulty, exploring the challenges of creating safe superintelligent AI.
Scott Alexander challenges Richard Hanania's explanation for liberal dominance in institutions, attributing it instead to shifting coalition systems described by Thomas Piketty.
Scott Alexander defends his criticism of the FDA's approval process in the infant fish oil case, arguing that systemic issues cause harmful delays even when the FDA follows its mandate.
Scott Alexander critiques Daron Acemoglu's Washington Post article on AI risks, highlighting flawed logic and unsupported claims about AI's current impacts.
Scott Alexander argues that Jewish overachievement is real and deserves continued study, countering Noah Smith's attempt to downplay its significance.
Scott Alexander critiques Bryan Caplan's constraints vs preferences model of mental illness, proposing instead a goals vs urges framework that better explains both mental and physical health issues.
Scott Alexander argues that public outrage over specific misdeeds is not arbitrary, but a strategic way to enforce important social norms with limited resources.
Scott Alexander argues against Nathan Robinson's proposal for public cafeterias, instead favoring a system of food vouchers with taxes and subsidies to promote healthy eating.
Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences in tech, arguing Grant misrepresents evidence and ignores key factors like innate interest differences between men and women.
Scott Alexander shares links to a debate between Gary Taubes and Stephan Guyenet about the health effects of sugar, praising the high-level discussion.
Scott Alexander criticizes a New York Times article for misrepresenting economists' views on education vouchers, showing the data actually indicates more support than opposition among economists.