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 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 critiques psychological studies claiming large effects from simple interventions, suggesting their impressive results may be due to flawed research rather than genuinely effective treatments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines three psychological studies that claim significant improvements in academic performance and behavior from simple interventions. He contrasts these with a large, expensive early intervention program for troubled youth that showed only modest effects. This leads him to question whether psychological research is flawed or if other interventions are ineffective. After closer examination, he finds potential issues with each study's methodology or reporting, suggesting that the impressive results may be due to poor research standards rather than genuinely effective interventions. He concludes by comparing this situation to an XKCD comic about economic theories, implying that if these psychological interventions truly worked as claimed, we would see much more significant improvements in education, rehabilitation, and mental health. Shorter summary