Scott Alexander argues for valuing thinkers who produce original ideas, even if they're often wrong, criticizing the tendency to dismiss intellectuals for their mistakes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the value of thinkers who generate original ideas, even if they also produce many incorrect ones. He uses the metaphor of a 'black box' that generates hypotheses, arguing that even with a low success rate, such a device would be incredibly valuable. He then applies this concept to real-world geniuses like Newton and Einstein, who despite some questionable ideas, produced groundbreaking work. Scott argues for 'positive selection' in intellectual pursuits, where a single good idea should outweigh multiple bad ones. He criticizes the tendency to dismiss thinkers entirely for having some wrong ideas, which he terms 'intellectual outrage culture'. The post concludes by emphasizing that even deeply flawed thinkers can provide valuable insights. Shorter summary

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. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a hierarchy of types of disagreements, expanding on Paul Graham's earlier work. He categorizes disagreements from meta-debate and social shaming at the bottom, through gotchas, single facts, and single studies, up to good-faith surveys of evidence and high-level generators of disagreement at the top. The post explains each level, discusses how to recognize and handle them, and suggests that engaging in higher-level disagreements can lead to mutual respect and potentially shift deeply held beliefs over time. Scott emphasizes the rarity of high-level disagreements in public discourse and the importance of understanding this hierarchy for more productive debates. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores five unspoken assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies when not clarified. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses five unspoken ground assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies. These include: (1) whether one is presenting a balanced view or arguing for one side, (2) if the argument is literal or pointing towards a hard-to-explain concept, (3) whether describing real-world phenomena or underlying mechanisms, (4) if addressing a specific problem or contributing to a broader intellectual discussion, and (5) whether presenting a definite theory or a hypothesis for consideration. He argues that ambiguity in these grounds can lead to confusion and false accusations of logical fallacies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces his new blog, Slate Star Codex, and explains its ethos of 'charity over absurdity' in intellectual discourse. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces his new blog, Slate Star Codex, explaining its name and ethos. The blog's central principle is 'charity over absurdity,' which means trying to understand opposing viewpoints rather than dismissing them outright. Scott explains this concept using Chesterton's Fence analogy and emphasizes the importance of charitable interpretation in intellectual discourse. He argues that this approach is not only ethically sound but also intellectually advantageous, as it can lead to a deeper understanding of complex issues. Shorter summary