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. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of allowing and encouraging 'Socratic grilling' - a process where students ask challenging questions to resolve their confusion about a topic. He argues that this process, which may appear confrontational, is crucial for developing critical thinking skills and should not be discouraged. The post uses an example of a student questioning germ theory to illustrate how this process works and why it's valuable. Scott emphasizes that misinterpreting these questions as arrogance or challenges to authority can be detrimental to learning. He also touches on the difficulty of signaling a desire to learn without being accused of arrogance, especially in online discussions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander revisits his 'Targeting Meritocracy' post, realizing the disagreements stemmed from different fundamental perspectives: mistake theory vs. conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his previous post 'Targeting Meritocracy' and the disagreements it generated. He realizes that the core of the disagreement stems from different perspectives: mistake theory vs. conflict theory. Scott originally wrote from a mistake theory viewpoint, assuming good government is about solving problems efficiently. However, he now understands that those who disagreed likely approached it from a conflict theory perspective, where good government is about serving specific class interests. This realization helps explain the stark difference in opinions and reinforces the importance of identifying fundamental assumptions when encountering seemingly inexplicable disagreements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the difficulty of recognizing concepts we might be missing, using examples from psychology and sociology to argue for keeping an open mind towards seemingly trivial ideas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'concept-shaped holes' - ideas or experiences that we might be missing without realizing it. He uses personal anecdotes and examples from fields like psychology and sociology to illustrate how we might think we understand something when we actually don't, or dismiss important ideas as trivial. The post discusses three main points: the difficulty in recognizing one's own emotional or relational limitations, the challenge of truly understanding concepts like 'atomization' or 'consumerism', and the importance of keeping an open mind towards seemingly meaningless fields of study. Scott argues for erring on the side of caution when dismissing ideas that many find profound, suggesting that what seems trivial might actually be beyond our current understanding. Shorter summary