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 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

Scott Alexander critiques a study on gender gaps in academia, arguing it ignores actual measures of ability which better explain the disparities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming that women are underrepresented in fields perceived to require innate talent. He argues that the study ignores actual measures of ability like GRE scores, which correlate more strongly with gender representation. Scott shows that when controlling for GRE quantitative scores, there is little left to explain in terms of gender gaps in fields like mathematics. He suggests the study's findings are an artifact of using perceptions as a proxy for actual ability, and criticizes how the media has misinterpreted the results. Shorter summary