Scott Alexander defends the concept of automaticity in psychology, arguing that core cognitive biases and priming effects are real, while acknowledging some claims have been overstated. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a critique of automaticity in psychology, arguing that while some claims about cognitive biases and priming have been overstated, the core concepts are real and well-replicated. He provides examples of cognitive biases, priming effects, and nudges that have strong evidence behind them. Scott compares cognitive biases to optical illusions - real phenomena that affect our perception, but not in ways that make us completely helpless. He argues that automaticity is actually a very old idea about human nature, found in various philosophical and religious traditions. While we shouldn't see ourselves as completely controlled by unconscious forces, Scott suggests that accepting some level of automaticity in our cognition is both realistic and not necessarily problematic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that despite some replication failures, the core of behavioral economics remains valid and valuable, with the field continuing to evolve and refine its understanding of human decision-making. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Jason Hreha's article claiming the 'death of behavioral economics'. He argues that while some studies have failed to replicate, the core insights of behavioral economics remain valid. Scott examines the historical origins of loss aversion, discusses recent debates about its existence, and argues that even small effect sizes can be valuable at scale. He concludes that behavioral economics as a field is generally healthy, continuing to investigate and refine our understanding of human decision-making, though specific paradigms may evolve over time. Shorter summary