Scott Alexander analyzes a survey on readers' estimated probabilities of Kavanaugh's guilt, finding significant partisan differences and no clear consensus even with probabilistic thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander conducted a survey asking readers to estimate the probability of Judge Kavanaugh being guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. The post analyzes the results, breaking them down by political party, gender, and background knowledge. The average probability given was 52.64%, with significant partisan differences. The survey also explored whether respondents thought the accusations were sufficient to reject Kavanaugh's nomination. Scott notes that even when encouraged to think probabilistically, people's responses still showed strong partisan biases, and there was no clear consensus even among politically neutral respondents. Shorter summary

The post argues against the idea that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. case is responsible for credentialism in employment, presenting evidence that the issue is more complex and widespread. Longer summary

This post challenges the common belief that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. Supreme Court case is responsible for the rise of credentialism in employment. The author presents several arguments against this notion: 1) The Griggs decision applies equally to college degrees and IQ tests, yet degrees are still widely used. 2) Other countries without similar laws face similar credentialism issues. 3) It's legal and possible for employers to ask for SAT scores (which approximate IQ tests), but this practice hasn't caught on. 4) Fields with standardized tests (like medicine) still heavily rely on credentials. The author concludes that the roots of credentialism likely lie deeper than this single court decision. Shorter summary