Scott Alexander explores 'epistemic learned helplessness', arguing it's often a rational defense against persuasive but false ideas, especially in unfamiliar fields. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'epistemic learned helplessness', where people refuse to believe arguments even when they seem logically sound. He argues that this is often a rational response to the fact that convincing arguments can be made for many false ideas, especially in fields where one lacks expertise. The post explores how this relates to beliefs in pseudohistory, fundamentalist religion, and fringe scientific theories. Scott suggests that while some ability to seriously consider new ideas is valuable, for most people, most of the time, a degree of epistemic learned helplessness is actually beneficial as a defense against bad arguments. He notes that the smartest and most rational people are often best at taking ideas seriously, but suggests this might be because they're capable of doing so without immediately falling for bad arguments. Shorter summary