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 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

Scott Alexander examines the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, finding it and other treatments only marginally better than no treatment, based on flawed and inconclusive studies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the evidence on Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) effectiveness, finding most studies to be flawed or inconclusive. He notes that AA seems to work about as well as other treatments, but only slightly better than no treatment at all. The post explores various studies, their methodologies, and their limitations, ultimately concluding that while AA and other treatments may help, their effects are small and often indistinguishable from each other or from brief interventions by doctors. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes psychological studies that confuse short-term reactions with long-term effects, using examples from video game violence research, media stereotype studies, and parenting research. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques psychological studies that draw broad conclusions about long-term effects based on short-term reactions. He uses examples from video game violence research, studies on media stereotypes, and child-rearing practices to illustrate the 'streetlight effect' - where researchers focus on easily measurable short-term effects rather than more relevant long-term impacts. He argues that temporary changes in mood or behavior immediately after an intervention don't necessarily translate to lasting personality changes or real-world actions. The post calls for more skepticism in interpreting such studies and emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between immediate situational responses and genuine long-term effects. Shorter summary