Astral Codex Ten

Pennsylvania

43 min read

Pennsylvania

Article

Pennsylvania is a recurring place in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 20 times across 20 issues between February 24, 2021 and March 30, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as “deep in the countryside of Pennsylvania”; “steel from Pennsylvania”; “It is noteworthy that Pennsylvania, the only state in which many cities have adopted LVT”. It most often appears alongside California, Scott, Australia.

Metadata

  • Category: Places
  • Mention count: 20
  • Issue count: 20
  • First seen: February 24, 2021
  • Last seen: March 30, 2026

Appears In

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.

Book Review: Fussell On Class
February 24, 2021 · Original source
Where then may a member of the top classes live in this country? New York first of all, of course. Chicago. San Francisco. Philadelphia. Baltimore. Boston. Perhaps Cleveland. And deep in the countryside of Connecticut, New York State, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. That's about it. It’s not considered good form to live in New Jersey, except in Bernardsville and perhaps Princeton, but any place in New Jersey beats Sunnyvale, Cypress, and Compton, California; Canton, Ohio; Reno, Nevada; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Columbus, Georgia, and similar army towns.
Highlights From The Comments On Kids And Climate Change
October 13, 2021 · Original source
This holds true for all the high use states, they export coal or gas, or refine crude oil, to be used in other areas of the country. NY's numbers don't include the carbon from the millions of yards they use annually, steel from Pennsylvania, or the incineration or burial of their rubbish at out-of-state facilities.
Does Georgism Work? Part 2: Can Landlords Pass Land Value Tax on to Tenants?
December 10, 2021 · Original source
It is noteworthy that Pennsylvania, the only state in which many cities have adopted LVT, ranks 49th out of 50 in assessment accuracy.
That's according to a 1983 article originally published in Fortune Magazine. I don't know how Pennsylvania fares today, given it's been 38 years.
Inline links: 1983 article originally published in Fortune Magazine
Does Georgism Work, Part 3: Can Unimproved Land Value be Accurately Assessed Separately From Buildings?
December 11, 2021 · Original source
Data scientists, statisticians, and machine learning nerds I'm told by some friends who know this kind of stuff that the ideal location in the United States would likely be somewhere in Pennsylvania, a state with LVT friendly policies and a history of detailed property records. After that, you'd pick out every mass assessment methodology from the literature, line them up, and reproduce them. Then, you'd come up with a novel method or two of your own and test those, too. Finally, you'd come up with a validation strategy for testing against true market values. The chief goals here would be to: Evaluate the current state of the art. How wide are the error bars?
ACX Grants Results
December 28, 2021 · Original source
Will Jarvis and Lars Doucet, $55,000, to create an automated land value assessment model for two Pennsylvania counties. You all know Lars as the guy who keeps writing guest posts here about Georgism. Now he wants to take it to the next level and start building tools for the Georgist future. This program would act as proof of concept that counties can assess land value relatively easily and accurately. I was on the fence about funding it because they can create a beautiful program with 100% success and then counties can just continue to not be Georgist for the same reasons as usual. I'm going ahead with it because I trust Lars who believes this is the best way forward, and because it seems like the sort of thing that could eventually grow into a Georgist think tank at some point in the future. They’re interested in talking to anyone who has experience in mass appraisal, Georgist or not, as well as applied data scientists and machine learning researchers. Fill out this form here if that’s you. You can follow their progress at https://gameofrent.com/
Inline links: guest posts here about Georgism, this form here, https://gameofrent.com/
Links For October
October 12, 2022 · Original source
34: Why does a line of waterfalls in Pennsylvania track the boundary between right- and left- leaning electoral districts? (answer: because navigable-by-river vs. not determined when an area was settled, who settled it, and how much trade it got)
Inline links: a line of waterfalls in Pennsylvania
ACX Grants: Project Updates
November 04, 2022 · Original source
6: Promote Economically Literate Climate Policy In US States (4/10) Yoram Bauman and Climate 24x7 have written a policy paper about their ideas. They were able to get a bill in front of the Nebraska Legislature, but it died in committee. They have a promising measure in Utah, and an off chance of getting something rolling in Pennsylvania. Overall they report frustration, as many of the legislators they worked with have been voted out or term-limited. If you are a legislator or activist interested in helping with this project - especially in Utah, Pennsylvania, or South Dakota - please contact Yoram at yoram@standupeconomist.com.
Inline links: a policy paper, Utah
Yoram Bauman’s Climate 24x7 is looking for state legislators and activists to support their work on pocketbook-friendly carbon taxes. People in Pennsylvania and South Dakota might be especially useful. Contact yoram@standupeconomist.com.
Spring Meetups Everywhere 2023
April 10, 2023 · Original source
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Wes Contact Info: wfenza[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Thursday, April 27th, 06:30 PM Location: Philadelphia Ethical Society. 1906 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87F6WRXG+FQ Event Link: https://discord.gg/W5rsVbdJUM?event=1090645327809363979 Notes: Free Dim Sum!
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87F6WRXG+FQ, https://discord.gg/W5rsVbdJUM?event=1090645327809363979
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Justin Contact Info: pghacx[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, April 22nd, 02:00 PM Location: Our meetup was at Galley Bakery Square (location changed from Mellon Park due to rain) Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G2F34M+PH Notes: We also host ~monthly meetups throughout the year, if you'd like to be added to the list to be notified of future meetups, please contact Justin at the email address above.
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87G2F34M+PH
Meetups Everywhere 2023: Times & Places
August 25, 2023 · Original source
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Wes Contact Info: rationalphilly[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Tuesday, September 26th, 7:00 PM Location: Ethical Society of Philadelphia, 1906 Rittenhouse Square Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87F6WRXG+FQ Group Link: Email - https://groups.google.com/g/ACXPhiladelphia; Google Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0?cid=cmF0aW9uYWxwaGlsbHlAZ21haWwuY29t; Meetup - https://www.meetup.com/philadelphia-rationalists/; Discord - https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB; Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly Notable Guests: Wes, one of the hosts of the Mindkiller podcast Notes: Free dim sum! There will be vegetarian and non-vegetarian selections. We have a social meetup once a month.
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87F6WRXG+FQ, https://groups.google.com/g/ACXPhiladelphia, https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0?cid=cmF0aW9uYWxwaGlsbHlAZ21haWwuY29t, https://www.meetup.com/philadelphia-rationalists/, https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Justin Contact Info: pghacx[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, September 16th, 2:00 PM Location: DEFAULT OUTDOOR MEETING LOCATION: Mellon Park (the portion SOUTH of Fifth Ave, and WEST of Beechwood Blvd). Look for us at the Rose Garden picnic tables, or the benches just outside the Rose Garden. UPDATE: We are sharing the park with the Pittsburgh Chinese Cultural Festival this afternoon. We are in the Rose Garden; the Rose Garden's WEST entrance to the (the tiny brick staircase) is blocked off, so the easiest way to get in is via the East entrance. Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G2F32J+QX Group Link: https://discord.gg/PM77wYwpj Notes: INDOOR CONTINGENCY OPTION: In the event of rain, we will instead meet at City Kitchen at Bakery Square, which is a short walk from Melon Park. (City Kitchen has two levels, so be sure to check upstairs if you can't find us.) If we shift meeting locations, Justin will send an email update >2 hours before the scheduled meetup time, as well as a follow-up email with the table number once we have arrived and claimed a space; please contact pghacx@gmail.com if you would like to be added to the email list in advance.
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87G2F32J+QX, https://discord.gg/PM77wYwpj
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Phil Persing Contact Info: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, September 9th, 3:00 PM Location: Millworks - 340 Verbeke St, Harrisburg, PA 17102. We'll plan to be on the rooftop biergarten if the weather is suitable, or inside downstairs otherwise. Look for the "ACX Meetup" sign on the table. Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G574C6+7X9 Group Link: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87G574C6+7X9
Spring Meetups Everywhere 2024
March 30, 2024 · Original source
PORTLAND, OREGON, USA Contact: Sam Celarek Contact Info: scelarek[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Friday, April 19th, 6:00 PM Location: 1548 NE 15th Ave, Portland, OR 97232 - There will be a large sign outside of a building with the print "Encorepreneur Cafe" on the outside. Call me at 513-432-3310 if you can't find it! Coordinates: https://plus.codes/84QVG8MX+MV4 Group Link: https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/ Notes: Please RSVP on Meetup so I know how much food to get. Pennsylvania HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Phil Contact Info: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, April 13th, 3:00 PM Location: Zeroday Brewing Company Taproom, 925 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA 17102 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R7 Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Inline links: https://plus.codes/84QVG8MX+MV4, https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/, https://plus.codes/87G57487+R7, https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Phil Contact Info: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, April 13th, 3:00 PM Location: Zeroday Brewing Company Taproom, 925 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA 17102 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R7 Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R7, https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Siddhesh Contact Info: ranade[dot]siddhesh[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, April 6th, 11:00 AM Location: La Colombe Coffee Roasters on 6th and Market (100 S Independence Mall W #110) Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M Group Link: Email - https://groups.google.com/g/ACXPhiladelphia; Google Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0?cid=cmF0aW9uYWxwaGlsbHlAZ21haWwuY29t; Meetup - https://www.meetup.com/philadelphia-rationalists/; Discord - https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB; Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M, https://groups.google.com/g/ACXPhiladelphia, https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0?cid=cmF0aW9uYWxwaGlsbHlAZ21haWwuY29t, https://www.meetup.com/philadelphia-rationalists/, https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
Your Book Review: Dominion
June 28, 2024 · Original source
To make this point, Scully recounts the story of a mule who was being used in a coal mine in the late 1800s. A novelist who toured the Pennsylvania mine wrote of mules being kept underground for years at a time in particularly brutal conditions. When eventually brought to the surface, they “almost go mad with fantastic joy...they caper and career with extravagant mulish glee.” This mule refused to go back in at its appointed time, and the workers mercifully decided to just let it stay above ground.
Meetups Everywhere 2024: Times & Places
August 29, 2024 · Original source
Contact: Sam Celarek Contact Info: scelarek[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Friday, September 13th, 05:30 PM Location: The Encorepreneur Cafe, 1548 NE 15th Ave, Portland, OR 97232 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/84QVG8MX+MV Group Link: https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/302889901 Notes: Feel free to bring food, but make sure to know what common allergies/animal products are in it so we can label it. Kids are welcome! Dogs are not. Pennsylvania HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Phil Contact Info: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, October 05th, 03:00 PM Location: Zeroday Brewing Company Taproom 925 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA 17102 We will likely be in the side-room to the right as you enter, look for the ACX MEETUP sign on the table Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R73 Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Inline links: https://plus.codes/84QVG8MX+MV, https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/302889901, https://plus.codes/87G57487+R73, https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Contact: Phil Contact Info: acxharrisburg[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, October 05th, 03:00 PM Location: Zeroday Brewing Company Taproom 925 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA 17102 We will likely be in the side-room to the right as you enter, look for the ACX MEETUP sign on the table Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R73 Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Siddhesh Contact Info: ranade[dot]siddhesh[a t]gmail[d ot]com Time: Saturday, October 05th, 11:00 AM Location: La Colombe at 100 S Independence Mall W #110, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M Group Link: https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R73, https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD, https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M, https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
Contact: Siddhesh Contact Info: ranade[dot]siddhesh[a t]gmail[d ot]com Time: Saturday, October 05th, 11:00 AM Location: La Colombe at 100 S Independence Mall W #110, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M Group Link: https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA Contact: Justin Contact Info: pghacx[at]gmail[dot]com Time: Saturday, September 14th, 02:00 PM Location: City Kitchen @ Bakery Square in East Liberty. If the weather is nice, we can meet at the outdoor tables by the South-East entrance. In case of bad weather, look for us in the atrium between City Kitchen and the Alta Via Pizza/Jeni's Ice Cream. Look for a table with a small stand saying "ACX" on it. I will also send out an email ~5 minutes before the scheduled start time with the table number.
Inline links: https://plus.codes/87F6XR2X+6M, https://discord.gg/46zb6hRVGB, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalphilly
Book Review: Deep Utopia
October 17, 2024 · Original source
At this point, why not just go all the way? Do the Deep Utopians have their Amish? When you get tired of being blissed out all the time, can you go to their version of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and do heavy farm labor, secure in the knowledge that you’ll go hungry if the corn doesn’t grow?
The Early Christian Strategy
November 14, 2024 · Original source
Then do whatever your opponent did last round. This was so boring that Axelrod sponsored a second tournament specifically for strategies that could displace TIT-FOR-TAT. When the dust cleared, TIT-FOR-TAT still won - although some strategies could beat it in head-to-head matches, they did worst against each other, and when all the points were added up TIT-FOR-TAT remained on top. In certain situations, this strategy is dominated by a slight variant, TIT-FOR-TAT-WITH-FORGIVENESS. That is, in situations where a bot can “make mistakes” (eg “my finger slipped”), two copies of TIT-FOR-TAT can get stuck in an eternal DEFECT-DEFECT equilibrium against each other; the forgiveness-enabled version will try cooperating again after a while to see if its opponent follows. Otherwise, it’s still state-of-the-art. The tournament became famous because - well, you can see how you can sort of round it off to morality. In a wide world of people trying every sort of con, the winning strategy is to be nice to people who help you out and punish people who hurt you. But in some situations, it’s also worth forgiving someone who harmed you once to see if they’ve become a better person. I find the occasional claims to have successfully grounded morality in self-interest to be facile, but you can at least see where they’re coming from here. And pragmatically, this is good, common-sense advice. For example, compare it to one of the losers in Axelrod’s tournament. COOPERATE-BOT always cooperates. A world full of COOPERATE-BOTS would be near-utopian. But add a single instance of its evil twin, DEFECT-BOT, and it folds immediately. A smart human player, too, will easily defeat COOPERATE-BOT: the human will start by testing its boundaries, find that it has none, and play DEFECT thereafter (whereas a human playing against TIT-FOR-TAT would soon learn not to mess with it). Again, all of this seems natural and common-sensical. Infinitely-trusting people, who will always be nice to everyone no matter what, are easily exploited by the first sociopath to come around. You don’t want to be a sociopath yourself, but prudence dictates being less-than-infinitely nice, and reserving your good nature for people who deserve it. Reality is more complicated than a game theory tournament. In Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma, everyone can either benefit you or harm you an equal amount. In the real world, we have edge cases like poor people, who haven’t done anything evil but may not be able to reciprocate your generosity. Does TIT-FOR-TAT help the poor? Stand up for the downtrodden? Care for the sick? Domain error; the question never comes up. Still, even if you can’t solve every moral problem, it’s at least suggestive that, in those domains where the question comes up, you should be TIT-FOR-TAT and not COOPERATE-BOT. This is why I’m so fascinated by the early Christians. They played the doomed COOPERATE-BOT strategy and took over the world. II. Matthew 5: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . . If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Talk is cheap, but The Rise Of Christianity suggests the early Christians pulled it off. For example, even though pagan institutions would not help indigent Christians, Christians tried to give charity to Christian and pagan alike, even going so far as to help nurse pagans during the plague (when nursing a victim conferred a high risk of contagion and death). Even Emperor Julian, an enemy of Christianity, admitted it lived up to its own standards: When the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence . . . [they] support not only their poor, but ours as well, [when] everyone can see that our people lack aid from us.” In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is asked whether it is acceptable for one Christian to pursue a lawsuit against another Christian in a pagan court. He answers: The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? We get a similar picture from the stories of the martyrs. Many of them prayed for the Romans while the Romans were in the process of torturing and killing them; Polycarp even cooked them a meal. If the Christians had merely been TIT-FOR-TAT, it would be easy to tell a story of their victory. The Roman Empire was corrupt and decadent to the core. People were looking for a community they could trust. Christianity offered access to a better class of friends who wouldn’t immediately rob or betray you when your guard was down. By providing a superior alternative to the low-trust pagan world, it was irresistible on a purely rational economic basis. But this story sounds more worthy of the mystery cults. Mystery cults are a great structure for mutual aid; we see this today in groups like the Freemasons (cf. Backscratcher Clubs). Everybody knows who’s on the inside (and needs to be mutually aided) and who’s on the outside (and can be ignored). The initiatory structure holds off freeloaders and makes sure the people on the inside are of approximately equal rank (so that you get as many benefits as you give) and can be held accountable if they don’t contribute. Since Christianity did better than the mystery cults, there must have been some reason that COOPERATE-BOT beat TIT-FOR-TAT in the particular environment of Roman religion, defying all normal game theoretic logic. III. Is this a consistent feature of COOPERATE-BOT strategies, or was it just luck? This is hard to say, because in all normal cases it’s impossible to follow a COOPERATE-BOT strategy at scale and for any period of time. Consider the Quakers, who gave it a better try than most. They were persecuted by the British and fled to America (is this kosher? it sort of seems like resisting evil). There they founded the colony of Pennsylvania, intended to be a utopia of pacifism and benevolence. They were very serious about this; history records many Quakers who were arrested or even killed rather than compromise their principles, and the British Crown seized Pennsylvania from the Quakers a few times because they wouldn’t make extremely cheap gestures like pay taxes or swear oaths. But in the end, the Crown frog-boiled the Quakers into compliance. They promised to return self-government if the Quakers would budge an inch - in one compromise, if they agreed to pay taxes that could go to non-combat functions of the military. The Quakers eventually agreed, and the British ratcheted up their demands the next time. Finally, in 1755, some Indians launched a major assault on Pennsylvania, and all the Quakers voluntarily resigned from government to let the non-Quaker Pennsylvanians (who by this time outnumbered them) conduct the war without restraint. The Quakers performed better than most COOPERATE-BOTs. They stuck to their principles most of the time, and in the end their religion survived. But look deeper, and you see a gradual process of surrender to reality. First was the flight to America, an implicit admission that living was better than being martyred for the faith. Then came the various compromises; an implicit admission that getting to keep self-government while being 99% pure was better than being subjects while 100% pure. Finally, they gave up Pennsylvania itself rather than be wiped out, again choosing the practical option over martyrdom. My point isn’t to knock the Quakers, who may come in a close 2nd in “historical groups that stuck to their cooperative principles despite all odds” and were certainly more ethical than I am. My point is that even very committed groups of religious fanatics fail the non-violent COOPERATE-BOT strategy eventually. Or maybe the ones who didn’t fail were wiped out? I hear good things about the Cathars, but we can’t know for sure because they were very thoroughly killed off - unrepentant to the last. Are there any other groups who deserve mention in this section besides early Christians, Quakers, and Cathars? I think some German and Russian sects have tried similar strategies, though they mostly failed and I don’t know much about them. Not exactly the same, but maybe rhyming: what about modern liberalism? To the monarchs and dictators of the past, free speech might seem kind of like COOPERATE-BOT in a limited domain: the idea that elites shouldn’t make any forceful/legal effort to protect their ideological and spiritual position must sound almost as crazy as them not making any forceful/legal effort to protect themselves if attacked, or to prevent themselves from getting cheated. It is, in some sense, a unilateral surrender in the war of ideas; fascists and communists will do their best to crush liberalism, but liberals cannot ban discussion of fascism or communism. The fact that this, too, has worked, makes me think early Christianity wasn’t just a one-off, but suggests some larger point. IV. Still, I don’t really know what it is. Here are some weak theories: Advertisement: Being kind to outsiders is good PR and encourages those outsiders to join you. This effect is stronger than the corresponding disincentive (that they won’t get much better treatment than they’re getting already, and they will have to be nice to other outsiders in their turn).
Inline links: The Rise Of Christianity, cf. Backscratcher Clubs, eventually agreed
Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
November 27, 2024 · Original source
People take various policy implications from this (maybe “life sentences” should end at 65, since incapacitation is unlikely to help much after that). But here we’re interested in its potential to confound studies. A 20 year old who gets 5 years in prison is released at 25 - still young! - but a 20 year old who gets 10 years in prison is released at 30 - too old to be leaping on rooftops and running from cops. The National Sentencing Commission understands this problem, and matches the experimental and control groups by age at release. But this introduces a new bias - now they’re different ages when they start committing crimes. Might a person who starts crime at 15 be a more disturbed and committed criminal than one who starts at 20? Seems plausible. I think this might be responsible for a lot of the seemingly positive effect of sentences > 5 years. There are dozens of other studies on this topic, all hotly debated, so even in this part I’m only going to list a few highlights. Still, these are: Green and Winik (2010). They use random judge assignment, ie look at criminals with similar crimes who got lenient/strict judges and so shorter/longer sentences. They find that the total difference in rearrests is indistinguishable from zero. But the length of time in which they were measuring rearrests includes the time the offenders were in jail, so this is saying that incapacitation plus aftereffects was zero (plus or minus a margin of error), meaning that aftereffects must be detrimental and large enough to cancel out the benefits of incapacitation, just as Roodman claims. But this study looked at minor crimes where sentences were measured in months, so I think this matches our previous suspicion that aftereffects might be detrimental in short sentences but neutral-to-beneficial in longer ones. Roach and Schanzenbach (2015) More random judge assignment, this time in Seattle. They find that each month of longer sentence decreases future reoffending by one percentage point. Most of these sentences are short, so this contradicts our working theory that lengthening short sentences increases crime but lengthening long ones decreases it. Neither Berger nor Roodman really want to take this study too seriously; Berger objects that it’s an unusual study population (everyone entered a guilty plea), and Roodman objects that the judge selection might not have been truly random. Rhodes (2018) is a matching study - it artificially tries to create groups of prisoners who are as similar as possible except that one group got longer sentences. Its big advantage is that it has some people serving moderately long sentences (a few years), getting us out of the few-month range investigated by some of the other studies. It finds a mild beneficial effect of longer sentences: This study provides no evidence that an offender’s criminal trajectory is negatively affected – that is, that criminal behavior is accelerated – by the length of an offender’s prison term. If anything, longer prison terms modestly reduce rates of recidivism beyond what is attributable to incapacitation. This “treatment effect” of a longer period of incarceration is small. The three-year base rate of 20% recidivism is reduced to 18.7% when prison length of stay increases by an average of 5.4 months. We are inclined to characterize this as a benign, close to neutral effect on recidivism. What Do Our Experts Think? As mentioned above, these are only a few of the very many studies on this topic, and I’ve only given the briefest summary of each. Due to the complexity of this literature, I’m relying more than usual on the opinion of the expert reviewers. Berger (pro-longer-sentences) says: Considering the rigorous research published since the Nagin et al. (2009) review, the literature regarding length of stay on recidivism is still somewhat inconsistent, with many studies claiming no recidivism effects and some showing that increased prison length reduces recidivism slightly. However, just like the rest of the research examined thus far, the study methodologies vary in terms of their limitations, which could explain some of the mixed results [...] At present, there is no substantial evidence that a criminogenic effect exists in the aggregate. Thus, it remains unclear whether criminogenic effects exist, and if so, under what circumstances...Among the substantial number of published studies with varying methodologies, not one has found a large aggregate-level criminogenic effect. Roodman (pro-shorter-sentences) says: The preponderance of the evidence says that incarceration in the US increases crime post-release, and enough over the long run to offset incapacitation. A quartet of judge randomization studies (Green and Winik in Washington, DC; Loeffler in Chicago; Nagin and Snodgrass in Pennsylvania; Dobbie, Goldin, and Yang in Philadelphia and Miami) put the net of incapacitation and incarceration aftereffects at about zero. In parallel, Chen and Shapiro find that harsher prison conditions—making for incarceration that is harsher in quality rather than quantity—also increases recidivism. Gaes and Camp concur, though less convincingly because in their study harsher incarceration quality went hand in hand with lower incarceration quantity. Mueller-Smith sides with all these studies and goes farther, finding modest incapacitation and powerful, harmful aftereffects in Houston; but modest hints of randomization failure accompany those results. Some studies dissent from the majority view that incarceration is criminogenic. Roach and Schanzenbach find beneficial aftereffects in Seattle—a result that is also subject to some doubt about the quality of randomization. Bhuller et al. make a more compelling case that incarceration reduces crime after—in Norway. Berecochea and Jaman, one of the few truly randomized studies in this literature, also looks more likely right than wrong, and is also somewhat distant in its setting, early-1970s California. And there are the two Georgia studies, which upon reanalysis no longer point to beneficial aftereffects, but still do not demonstrate harmful ones either. Aftereffects must vary by place, time, and person. But the first-order generalization that best fits the credible evidence is that at the margin in the US today, aftereffects offset in the long run what incapacitation does in the short run. Nagin (neutral, tie-breaker) says: Compared with noncustodial sanctions, incarceration appears to have a null or mildly criminogenic effect on future criminal behavior. This conclusion is not sufficiently firm to guide policy generally, though it casts doubt on claims that imprisonment has strong specific deterrent effects. What conclusions do we draw from these studies of the dose-response relationship between time served and reoffending? The one experimental study is suggestive of a preventive effect, but that effect may be attributable to incapacitation. Two of the matching studies point weakly to a criminogenic type dose-response relationship, but both are extremely dated. The Loughran et al. (2008) study suggests a possible criminogenic effect of placement but finds no linkage between time served and reoffending. We draw no conclusions from the results of the regression studies. Not only are results extremely varied, but more importantly all of the studies suffer from a fundamental analytical flaw. This flaw relates to the potential sensitivity of regression- based studies to specification errors in the model of the relationship of age and offending rate. In other words: Berger and Nagin think evidence is weak and it’s kind of a wash and maybe there are slight criminogenic effects; Roodman thinks there are strong criminogenic effects that (on the current margin) are sizeable enough to approximately cancel out the benefit from incapacitation. So What’s Up With Roodman? At the risk of repeating myself: this is the question upon which this whole essay hinges. Everyone agrees that the beneficial effects of deterrence are real but small. Everyone agrees that the beneficial effects of incapacitation are real and large. Everyone except Roodman agrees that aftereffects range from slightly beneficial to slightly detrimental, for a net effect of incarceration significantly decreasing crime. Only Roodman says that aftereffects are large and detrimental, for a net effect of incarceration having no effect on crime. So where does Roodman disagree with everyone else? My impression is that the main difference is that Roodman gives more weight to certain judge selection studies. These find that being randomly assigned to a lenient vs. strict judge (and therefore on average getting a short vs. long sentence) doesn’t change rearrest rates after X years from the time the sentence started. This X year period includes both the time spent serving the sentence, and the time after release when aftereffects might materialize - ie they include both incapacitation and aftereffects. Since these studies fail to find any net effect, and incapacitation effects must be beneficial and large, Roodman concludes that aftereffects must be detrimental and large. Then he reanalyzes several of the other studies that other people use to demonstrate no or beneficial aftereffects, and finds them less convincing after reanalysis. So who is right? Roodman gets his strongest evidence from studies of short sentences vs. shorter sentences (eg going from 0 to 1 years, or 1 to. 2 years). These are naturally where we would expect the fewest benefits from incapacitation. But they’re also where we would common-sensically expect the worst aftereffects. Someone going from zero prison to one year in prison has had their life, career, and relationships profoundly changed, in a way that someone going from ten years in prison to eleven years hasn’t. This is consistent with the National Sentencing Commission study above. They found that aftereffects trended worse the shorter the sentences got, but didn’t investigate any sentences shorter than 2-3 years. If the trend continues, sentences shorter than that could have aftereffects > incapacitation. So maybe Roodman is right about shorter sentences, and everyone else is right about longer sentences. Going from a month to a year in prison is so disruptive and criminogenic that it risks canceling the benefits of eleven extra months of incapacitation. But going from ten years to eleven years mostly just gives you the incapacitation. Marginal Revolution This highlights a problem with all of these studies: we can only talk about particular margins. Imagine a country which currently incarcerates zero people, trying to decide whether to move up to a policy of incarcerating one person. If you only incarcerate one person, it will be the baddest dude in the whole country. That guy really needs to be behind bars! And we’re not worried about turning him into a hardened criminal, because he’s already maximally bad. Here it’s obvious that benefits outweigh costs. Now imagine a country which incarcerates 50% of its population, trying to decide whether to move up to 50% + 1. At this point, you’re imprisoning someone who went a few miles over the speed limit. You gain no benefits from incapacitation (he wasn’t going to commit any crimes anyway), but you stand to lose a lot from aftereffects (he’s probably a totally normal law-abiding citizen, so there’s a very high risk of ruining his life and turning him into a more hardened criminal). Here it’s obvious that costs outweigh benefits. So the question isn’t “do the costs of prison outweigh benefits?”, but rather “at what point between incarcerating 0% and 50% of people does the cost of imprisoning one more person start outweighing the benefits?”, or even “at the current US incarceration rate of 0.75%, does the cost of imprisoning one more person outweigh the benefits?” In some sense, this is what we’ve been investigating the whole time - all of these studies are being conducted at the current margin. But this hides big differences between them. We’ve already seen that European studies get stronger results than American studies. That’s because European countries have incarceration rates of ~0.05%, compared to America’s ~0.75%. In theory, Europeans countries’ incarceration rates are lower because they have less crime. But I notice that the European countries we’re talking about here all have high recent new immigrant populations, and in Europe these groups commit more crimes per person than natives. So it’s possible that Europe is still adjusting to being a high-crime continent, whereas America has already adjusted by raising incarceration rates. So one possible conclusion is that the benefits of incarceration strongly outweigh costs in Europe. I think this is clearly true by American values - we seem to care more about preventing crime, and be less horrified by imprisonment, than the average European. But there are many different margins even within America. Louisiana’s incarceration rate is >1%; Massachusetts is <0.25%. Some of the variance reflects the criminality of each state’s population, but other variance reflects the values of each state’s voters and policy-makers. We haven’t been keeping great track of which state each of our studies comes from, but plausibly the marginal prisoner in Massachusetts is a badder dude than the marginal prisoner in Louisiana, and releasing him is more likely to have costs > benefits. Margins also differ across eras. US incarceration ranged from 0.2% in 1970 to 0.95% in 2007 to about 0.75% today. Our studies cover this entire time period. This is probably why Levitt found stronger incapacitation effects (studying the 1970s) than Owens or Lofstrom+Raphael (studying the 2000s). Finally, there are the margins across sentences we discussed earlier. Going from zero years in prison to one year is a bigger deal than going from ten to eleven. When we examine our original question - does extending the average prisoner’s sentence for one year substantially decrease crime, we find that there’s no single answer - it depends where we are on all of these margins. Roodman’s skeptical position is most plausible for shorter sentences in high-incarceration areas, and Berger’s pro-prison position is most plausible for longer sentences in low-incarceration areas. So Why Do People Keep Saying That Prison Doesn’t Decrease Crime? We began with the observation that criminologists tend to deny that prison decreases crime. We now know why Roodman thinks this: he idiosyncratically believes that aftereffects equal (and so cancel out) incapacitation. But nobody else has even gotten this far. So what’s everyone else’s position? The Vera Institute is an anti-incarceration think tank. They have a policy paper titled The Incarceration Myth: More Incarceration Will Not Decrease Crime. It says: There is a very weak relationship between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates. Although studies differ somewhat, most of the literature shows that between 1980 and 2000, each 10 percent increase in incarceration rates was associated with just a 2 to 4 percent lower crime rate. This is just taking the (real, positive) effect of incarceration on crime, and calling it “very weak”. Research shows that each additional increase in incarceration rates will be associated with a smaller and smaller reduction in crime rates. We saw above that this is true, but I find it annoying to mention here in this kind of advocacy context - it’s also true of everything else in the world! When the Vera Institute publishes anti-mass-incarceration white papers, the 500th white paper will be less influential than the first. If I claimed that “research showed” this, and so they should stop publishing anti-mass-incarceration white papers, they would look at me like I’d gone insane. Get a life. The weak association between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates applies almost entirely to property crime. Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates. This is sort of true. Research finds a stronger effect of incarceration on property crimes than violent crimes, although Levitt does find a violent crime effect of minus one violent crime per incarceration-year. Partly this is because violent crimes are rarer than property crimes, and so studies are underpowered to find them. And partly it’s because most studies are done on mass releases of prisoners, where (for example) the state has to release 25% of the prison population to decrease overcrowding, but they get to choose which 25% - and states are smart enough not to release the murderers and psychos. Still, if Vera Institute’s preferred decarceration policy is also smart, then it won’t release the murderers and psychos either, and this point will stand. So my interpretation of Vera Institute is that they’re making some good points about ways that incarceration isn’t an infinitely powerful cure-all, but that it’s deceptive to summarize them as “incarceration doesn’t decrease crime”. What about other groups? Prison Policy Institute has a list of “crime myths”. Myth #7 is that “Harsh punishments deter crime, making us safer”. They write: Many people mistakenly believe that long sentences, paired with austere and even brutal prison conditions, will have a deterrent effect on crime. But research has consistently found that harsher sentences do not serve as effective “examples” that would prevent new people from committing serious crimes. In 2016, the National Institute of Justice summarized the research on deterrence, finding that prison sentences, and especially long sentences, do little to deter future crime Here they’re using “deterrence” in the strict sense (that is, in a way that doesn’t count incapacitation), noting that it’s small, and rounding off “small” to “zero”. I’ve looked at some other sites and think tanks that claim to have arguments against the “myth” that prison prevents crime, and they’re all using these same two tricks. Either they ignore incapacitation and focus only on deterrence + aftereffects. Or they imagine some hypothetical prison super-fan who believes that incapacitation is infinitely effective, prove that it’s less effective than this, declare victory over this fake opponent, and then summarize their win as “prison has no effect”. What Are The Costs Vs. Benefits Of Prison? So a more honest version of the claim that “prison has no effect on crime” might be “the effect of prison on crime is weak”. How weak is it? We already saw one way to answer this: it probably prevents on average 7 crimes/year (6 property + 1 violent), minus some amount, especially for short sentences, if you believe in criminogenic aftereffects. For the shortest sentences at the highest-incarceration margins, it’s possible for the effect to be zero or less. Another way to answer is with elasticities. If we increase in incarceration rate 10%, how much crime do we prevent at the current margins? Levitt estimates 3%, Cohen finds 0.5-7%, and Dhodnt finds -2% (ie prison increases crime) but this is an outlier. Spelman writes: Our best estimate of elasticity is “in the neighborhood of [3% drop in crime per 10% increase in incarceration]” but “[a]ny figure between [2% and 4%] can be defended, and we should not be too surprised to find that the result is anywhere between [1% and 5%]” This broadly agrees with our numbers from Sweden, California, and El Salvador above. Small increases in incarceration cause small decreases in crime. Large increases in incarceration cause large decreases in crime. If you doubled the incarceration rate, locking up an extra million people, then crime would decrease ~30% at current US margins (maybe less, because you’re shifting the margin and getting diminishing returns). Would more prison be good or bad? We’d need to do a cost-benefit analysis. Surprisingly, Roodman does the best work here: after making his claim that costs and benefits mostly cancel out, he admits that most people won’t believe him, and tries to estimate the effect size in the “devil’s advocate” case where everyone else is right and he is wrong. He starts with our previous finding that incapacitation prevents ~7 crimes a year, and returns to the incapacitation studies to see what types of crime are most affected. Then he adjusts for the low level of aftereffects that everyone else believes in. I’ve redone his results for clarity. This table shows the total number of each type of crime prevented by keeping the marginal prisoner in jail for one extra year: Why does prison prevent negative robberies? Roodman is subtracting the small aftereffects found by other researchers, and the data for rare crimes is noisy, so probably this is just an artifact. I round this to zero for the full analysis. If we’re trying to calculate the costs vs. benefits of imprisonment, we need to put a cost on all these crimes. This is hard to quantify - a robber may steal $100 worth of goods, but valuing his crime at $100 in costs ignores the disutility of (eg) living in fear Roodman uses two methods: first, he values a crime at the average damages that courts award to victims, including emotional damages. Second, he values it at what people will pay - how much money would you accept to get assaulted one extra time in your life? These estimates still exclude some intangible costs, like the cost of living in a crime-ridden community, but it’s the best we can do for now. Here are his answers (I’ve taken the geometric mean of the two methods): So one extra year of incarcerating the marginal criminal saves society $44,000 in crimes prevented. Now we add in the opposite side of the ledger: the costs of incarceration: According to Roodman, the average prisoner costs the state $31,000 per year. He got his data from 2008, and it’s since ballooned to about $60,000, but we’ll keep his number so that everything is from the same time period. (also, as always, California is more expensive - here it’s $120,000) Roodman also adds in the costs to the prisoner. He uses some surveys to value the disutility of the suffering caused by a year in prison at $50,000; additionally, the prisoner loses about $16,000 in earning potential. The end result: if you don’t count the costs to the prisoner themselves, and you don’t use the more modern number, and you’re not in an expensive state like California, then the marginal incarceration-year saves society about $13,000. If you do count those things, or you’re in an expensive state, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Realistically, most people won’t care about analyses like this. They’ll be more interested in the unquantifiable costs and benefits, including: The “benefit” of feeling like justice has been done and an evil deed has been avenged.
Inline links: Green and Winik (2010), Roach and Schanzenbach (2015), Rhodes (2018), incarceration rates are lower because they have less crime, The Vera Institute, The Incarceration Myth: More Incarceration Will Not Decrease Crime, a list of “crime myths”, Cohen, Dhodnt, Spelman, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!FI6X!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6865dbc9-fe86-4467-ab7b-829c1425a81b_189x133.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!X8oH!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F13ddcc41-7e70-4a3c-bd25-c046f2bf811d_404x177.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ltt7!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7484d67f-e24d-4511-ac8f-f7b20efed758_458x273.png
Meetups Everywhere Spring 2025: Times & Places
March 25, 2025 · Original source
Contact: Sam Celarek Contact Info: scelarek[a t]gmail[period]com Time: Friday, April 18th, 06:00 PM Location: 133 SE Madison Street, Portland, OR 97214 United States, Portland, OR There will be a large sign saying PEAR with a light shining on it outside the BRIDGESPACE building. Of note, the entrance is on the East side of the building! Feel free to call Sam Celarek at 5134323310 if you can't find it. Coordinates: https://plus.codes/84QVG87P+7C Group Link: https://discord.gg/JwJ [remove this bit] tAJKA Notes: Feel free to bring food, but vegan food and drinks will be provided. RSVP on the meetup here: Portland Effective Altruism and Rationality (PEAR): https://meetu.ps/e/NV6r6/Ywbrj/i Pennsylvania HARRISBURG Contact: Phil Contact Info: acxharrisburg[a t]gmail[period]com Time: Saturday, April 19th, 02:00 PM Location: Zeroday Brewing Company Taproom, 925 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA 17102. Table with ACX MEETUP sign Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G57487+R77 Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Inline links: https://plus.codes/84QVG87P+7C, https://meetu.ps/e/NV6r6/Ywbrj/i, https://plus.codes/87G57487+R77, https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/PXrLoKgiAyXEG2hLD
Your Review: Alpha School
June 27, 2025 · Original source
NextGen Academy (Austin) —Perhaps the most radical experiment. Afternoons are spent training in competitive esports & game design. Each new campus launched with <10 students, two or more local guides, and the same two‑hour core. Simultaneously Alpha opened a Miami elementary campus, promoted the idea that cities could launch “micro schools” if they had enough local demand (unless you count Miami, none actually launched) and piloted a beta-test of a Home‑School version of the platform. Early homeschool data showed that kids were using it for ~2 hours/day as planned, but only seeing a 1x learning growth — still a fine result for only doing 2-hours of academics per day, but a long way from what Alpha was delivering on their own campuses, so the program has stayed in beta. Jan 2025 | Charter & Licence Play Alpha now had a parent company, “2-hour Learning”, which sat above all of the schools, the home school product, and the platform itself (that they now offer to license out to third parties). The parent company filed under “Unbound Academy” to launch charter schools in Arizona and Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania school was rejected, but the Arizona school will launch in fall 2025. There are more applications pending in at least Utah, Arkansa, North Carolina, South Carolina (and likely more). While the PR spin around these schools is “AI-driven, no teachers” in practice they use 20:1 teacher guide:student ratios (vs the 5:1 ratio at the Alpha private schools) Generally states subsidize charter schools in the neighborhood of $10,000 per student – which is a lot lower than what Alpha charges. They should be able to make those economics work by using fewer, less expensive teachers, not having an expensive campus (or no campus at all for the online schools), skimming on the extras (no trips to Poland), avoiding teaching the youngest kids (Arizona is 4th-8th grade), and being willing to accept smaller or even negligible margin on their learning platform. The goal of these schools does not seem to be making money or profit – at least not right away. The goal seems to be rapidly expanding the program to have more influence, and to see if they can make it work with “non-selected kids at a low price point”. Fall 2025 and Beyond | The Future The Alpha website claims the following locations are launching in Fall 2025: Houston, TX
Inline links: NextGen Academy, 2-hour Learning, locations
Highlights From The Comments On Liberalism And Communities
August 12, 2025 · Original source
I've visited an Indian friend in rural Pennsylvania. Their housing community is 98% Indian. There's only 1 non-Indian family out of the 50 houses.
Meetups Everywhere 2025: Times and Places
August 29, 2025 · Original source
Contact: Sam Celarek Contact Info: scelarek[a t]gmail[period]com Time: Saturday, September 20th, 5:30 PM Location: We will be at Bridgespace underneath the Hawthorne Bridge. Look for a large sign saying PEAR near the entrance on the East facing side of the building, or call the number on the meetup event! Coordinates: https://plus.codes/84QVG87P+6CM Group Link: https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/303126316/?slug=portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality&eventId=303126316 Notes: BridgeSpace itself. Our group has dinners weekly at Cartopia. https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/310434918 Come join a mix of Rationalists and EAs (80:20)! Pennsylvania ALLENTOWN Contact: Ed Contact Info: ed[period]lundeen[a t]gmail[period]com Time: Saturday, 11th, 10:00 AM Location: Covered Bridge Park, South Whitehall Tshp Coordinates: https://plus.codes/87G6JCHM+84
Inline links: https://plus.codes/84QVG87P+6CM, https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/303126316/?slug=portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality&eventId=303126316, https://www.meetup.com/portland-effective-altruism-and-rationality/events/310434918, https://plus.codes/87G6JCHM+84
Open Thread 427
March 30, 2026 · Original source
In 1896, two Polish immigrants in Pennsylvania gave birth to a young boy with the unlikely name of “Palestine Wirkus”. People must have found that as weird then as we would now - albeit for different reasons - because at some point they renamed him to the much more normal-sounding “Faustin Wirkus”. This decision would go on to change the course of his life and, eventually, world history.