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. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Julia Galef's book 'The Scout Mindset', which aims to teach people how to think more clearly and rationally. The book distinguishes between 'soldier mindset' (defending one's beliefs) and 'scout mindset' (seeking truth). It provides techniques for adopting a scout mindset, including probabilistic thinking and thought experiments. The book also addresses the emotional challenges of changing one's mind and uses examples of admirable people who have done so to normalize the practice. Scott notes that the book goes beyond just teaching rationality techniques and touches on personal growth and becoming a better person. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander discusses confirmation bias, suggesting it might not be a separate phenomenon from normal reasoning but rather a misapplication of Bayesian reasoning. He uses an example of believing a friend who reports seeing a coyote in Berkeley but disbelieving the same friend reporting a polar bear. Scott argues this is similar to how we process information that confirms or challenges our existing beliefs. He proposes that when faced with evidence contradicting strong priors, we should slightly adjust our beliefs while heavily discounting the new evidence. The post critiques an evolutionary psychology explanation of confirmation bias from a Fast Company article, suggesting instead that confirmation bias might be a result of normal reasoning processes gone awry rather than a distinct cognitive bias. Shorter summary

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

This post critiques the misuse of terms like 'debunked' and 'well-refuted' in academic and political discourse. Scott argues that these terms are often used to dismiss opposing views without proper consideration, using examples from debates on campus rape statistics and minimum wage studies. He emphasizes the importance of critically examining studies and their critiques, rather than blindly accepting claims of debunking. The post highlights the dangers of confirmation bias and the need for nuanced understanding of complex issues, rather than simplistic dismissals of opposing viewpoints. Shorter summary