Yascha Mounk
Article
Yascha Mounk is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between February 14, 2021 and February 05, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as “Atlantic editor Yascha Mounk”; “14: Contra Yascha Mounk On Whether The World Happiness Report Is A Sham”; “Contra Yascha Mounk On Whether The World Happiness Report Is A Sham”. It most often appears alongside Trump, 4o, 60 Minutes.
Metadata
- Category: People
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: February 14, 2021
- Last seen: February 05, 2026
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- Trump (2 shared issues)
-
- 4o (1 shared issues)
-
- 60 Minutes (1 shared issues)
-
- @MattZeitlin (1 shared issues)
-
- @MMJukic (1 shared issues)
-
- @Poltfan69 (1 shared issues)
-
- @tenobrus (1 shared issues)
-
- @TheMidasProj (1 shared issues)
-
- @TPCarney (1 shared issues)
-
- @xathrya (1 shared issues)
-
- A Song Of Ice And Fire (1 shared issues)
-
- A16Z (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
When I discussed this with the New York Times, they said they were going to reveal my real name anyway. As a protest and an attempt to prevent this from happening, I deleted my blog and replaced it with a post condemning the New York Times’ actions. The post “went viral”, 513,000 people read it, hundreds (thousands?) of people cancelled their New York Times subscriptions in protest, and it was a major scandal. There were some news stories about it at the time – you can read some of them eg here or here. I was proud to receive support from voices like Harvard professor Steven Pinker, Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, science broadcaster Liv Boeree, and Atlantic editor Yascha Mounk.
14: Contra Yascha Mounk On Whether The World Happiness Report Is A Sham. Happiness reports continue to have pitfalls and complications, but the researchers involved are making defensible choices and aren’t trivially wrong.