Scott Alexander argues against significantly updating beliefs based on single dramatic events, advocating for consistent policies based on pre-existing probability distributions.

Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories.

Scott Alexander uses a satirical FAQ about stores to illustrate common objections to new institutions, then explains the purpose and offers heuristics for evaluating such criticisms.

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Scout Mindset' by Julia Galef, a book on rationality that emphasizes seeking truth over defending beliefs and addresses both intellectual and emotional aspects of clear thinking.

Scott Alexander advocates for 'Socratic grilling' as a valuable learning tool, urging people not to mistake genuine confusion and questioning for arrogance or challenges to authority.

Scott Alexander proposes that confirmation bias might be a misapplication of normal Bayesian reasoning rather than a separate cognitive phenomenon.

Scott Alexander critiques therapy books, highlighting their exaggerated claims and questioning the validity of their approaches, based on his clinical experience and historical misdiagnoses in psychology.

Scott Alexander announces the second Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where people with opposing views collaborate on essays about controversial topics for prizes.

Scott Alexander critiques the use of bias arguments in debates, explaining why they're often counterproductive and suggesting more constructive ways to address bias.

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

Scott Alexander explores the overuse of the term 'conspiracy theory' and provides heuristics for evaluating the plausibility of conspiratorial claims.

Scott Alexander proposes a hierarchy of types of disagreements, from low-level meta-debate to high-level philosophical differences, and discusses how to engage in more productive arguments.

Scott Alexander announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about.

Scott reviews evidence on whether college improves critical thinking, finding modest short-term gains but questioning their long-term persistence.

The post uses a fabricated narrative about cardiologists to illustrate the Chinese Robber Fallacy and its role in media bias, emphasizing the importance of context in interpreting negative stories about any group.

Scott criticizes the misuse of terms like 'debunked' in academic and political discourse, arguing for more nuanced examination of studies and their critiques.

Scott Alexander cautions against basing opinions on limited research, using examples from medicine and economics to show how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions.

Scott Alexander refutes a blog post criticizing rationalism, arguing it misunderstands the movement and its core values of empiricism, scholarship, and humility.

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'isolated demands for rigor' across philosophy, politics, and science, criticizing the selective application of rigorous standards.

Scott argues that focusing on easily debunked fringe beliefs when discussing rationality can be counterproductive, potentially hampering people's ability to doubt their own beliefs and engage in critical thinking.

Scott Alexander creates a political quiz to distinguish between object-level and meta-level thinking, based on consistent application of principles across different scenarios.

Scott Alexander lists five reasons why Guy Fawkes Day should be forgotten, demonstrating how easy it is to generate arguments when one puts some thought into it.

Scott Alexander outlines and criticizes ten fallacious argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's beliefs, demonstrating how they can be used to unfairly attack any position.

Scott identifies five logical fallacies in a popular anecdote about Steve Jobs rejecting Indian spirituality, arguing it succeeded through tribal appeal rather than logical merit, and uses it as a case study for why careful argument analysis must become automatic.