Scott Alexander critiques a Buzzfeed article skeptical of growth mindset research, arguing that while skepticism is warranted, more robust evidence is needed to disprove the theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a Buzzfeed article criticizing growth mindset research, particularly the work of Carol Dweck. While acknowledging the hype around growth mindset and his own skepticism, Scott argues that the article's critique is not sufficiently robust. He points out that despite the reasons to be suspicious, the growth mindset studies have shown strong results. Scott identifies three main criticisms in the Buzzfeed piece but finds them lacking in strength to fully debunk the theory. He emphasizes the importance of thorough, evidence-based criticism rather than relying on intuition or weak arguments. Scott warns against dismissing potentially valid research too quickly, using an analogy to climate change denial tactics. He concludes by calling for more rigorous efforts to disprove growth mindset if it is indeed flawed. 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

The post deconstructs a growth mindset study, revealing that its positive claims in the abstract are not supported by the actual data, demonstrating the importance of critical analysis of scientific papers. Longer summary

The post critically analyzes a study on growth mindset interventions, revealing that the abstract's positive claims are not supported by the actual data. The author demonstrates how the study's results, when examined closely, show little to no effect of growth mindset interventions on students' academic performance. The post highlights the importance of reading beyond abstracts and titles, and critically examining scientific papers, especially in popular fields where publication bias may exist. The author uses this example to illustrate how careful analysis can reveal contradictions between a study's stated conclusions and its actual findings. 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

Scott Alexander critically examines the concept of growth mindset, expressing skepticism despite compelling studies and discussing various issues with the theory and its interpretation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of growth mindset, expressing skepticism despite compelling studies. He discusses the history of growth mindset research, points out inconsistencies in longitudinal data, and questions the interpretation of experimental results. Scott also criticizes how some proponents use growth mindset to deny the importance of innate ability. While acknowledging the potential benefits of growth mindset, he remains uncertain about its real-world effects and long-term impact. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses NBA player heights as an analogy to discuss intelligence and IQ, advocating for a balanced view that acknowledges both innate talent and effort. Longer summary

Scott Alexander compares intelligence to height in basketball to demystify discussions about IQ. He analyzes NBA player height distribution, showing how extreme height gives a massive advantage. The post then draws parallels between height in basketball and intelligence, suggesting we should view intelligence similarly: as important but not solely determinative of success. Scott argues for a balanced view that acknowledges the role of innate talent while still valuing hard work and practice. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of cultivating high-level skills, including intelligence, to address future challenges. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of innate ability and argues for its acceptance, while cautioning against tying self-worth to intellectual achievement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of innate ability and its impact on self-worth, using personal anecdotes and philosophical arguments. He discusses how attributing success to hard work alone can be problematic, as it ignores inherent differences in aptitude. The post compares attitudes towards intelligence with those towards other traits like weight or poverty, noting a inconsistency in how society views these issues. Scott argues for accepting innate differences while still encouraging effort, and suggests that self-worth should not be tied to intellectual ability or achievement. Shorter summary