The review examines John Holt's 'How Children Fail', critiquing traditional education and suggesting modern alternatives to improve learning. Longer summary

This book review discusses John Holt's 'How Children Fail', a critique of traditional schooling methods. The reviewer, who read the book as a child, presents Holt's observations on why children struggle in school, including issues with strategy, fear, and boredom. The review explores how school's structure, with its focus on external motivation and accountability, can hinder natural learning processes. It also touches on the long-term psychological effects of schooling and the trade-off between efficiency and control in education. The reviewer concludes by suggesting that modern technology might offer solutions to some of the problems Holt identified, and calls for rethinking our approach to education in light of recent disruptions to traditional schooling. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his growth mindset study analysis, acknowledging some errors while maintaining other criticisms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a critique of his previous post about a growth mindset study by Dr. Paunesku, the lead author. He acknowledges several errors in his original analysis, including misinterpreting a graph and incorrectly stating that a control group was classified as a mindset intervention. However, Scott maintains some of his criticisms, particularly regarding the combination of different interventions in the analysis and the interpretation of statistical significance. He expresses concern about loosening significance criteria and the potential for misleading conclusions when combining different interventions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander clarifies his stance on growth mindset theory, distinguishing between widely accepted ideas and more controversial claims made by Carol Dweck, expressing skepticism about some aspects while acknowledging supporting evidence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his position on growth mindset theory, clarifying his views in response to comments on a previous post. He distinguishes between what he calls the 'Bloody Obvious Position' (that both innate ability and effort matter for success) and the 'Controversial Position' (that believing more in effort than innate ability leads to better outcomes). He argues that while he and Carol Dweck both accept the Bloody Obvious Position, Dweck also supports the Controversial Position, which he finds less convincing. He further breaks down Dweck's stance into a 'Sorta Controversial Position' and a 'Very Controversial Position', the latter of which he finds particularly questionable. Scott concludes by explaining his own beliefs about these positions, expressing skepticism about some aspects of growth mindset theory while acknowledging the evidence supporting it. Shorter summary