Scott Alexander argues against significantly updating beliefs based on single dramatic events, advocating for consistent policies based on pre-existing probability distributions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against dramatically updating one's beliefs based on single events, even if they are significant. He contends that a good Bayesian should have distributions for various events and only make small updates when they occur. The post covers several examples, including COVID-19 origin theories, 9/11, mass shootings, sexual harassment scandals, and crises in the effective altruism movement. Scott suggests that while dramatic events can be useful for coordination and activism, they shouldn't significantly alter our understanding of underlying probabilities. He advocates for predicting distributions beforehand and maintaining consistent policies rather than overreacting to individual incidents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism from Chris Kavanagh about his lengthy analysis of ivermectin studies. He argues that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can push people toward conspiracy theories. Scott shares his personal experience with Atlantis conspiracy theories as a teenager, emphasizing the importance of providing rational explanations rather than mockery. He critiques Kavanagh's apparent stance against examining evidence, likening it to religious fideism. Scott defends the value of practicing critical thinking and evidence evaluation, even on settled issues, to build skills for harder cases. He argues that conspiracy theorists use similar reasoning processes to everyone else, just with more biases, and that understanding these processes is crucial for effective communication and prevention of misinformation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses a satirical FAQ about stores to illustrate common objections to new institutions, then explains the purpose and offers heuristics for evaluating such criticisms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical FAQ about buying things from stores, addressing various hypothetical concerns and objections. The post humorously explores common criticisms of new institutions by applying them to the familiar concept of stores. In the final section, Scott explains the purpose of this satire, drawing parallels to similar objections raised against prediction markets and self-service gas stations. He then offers heuristics for evaluating such criticisms and emphasizes the importance of practical implementation over theoretical objections. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Scout Mindset' by Julia Galef, a book on rationality that emphasizes seeking truth over defending beliefs and addresses both intellectual and emotional aspects of clear thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Julia Galef's book 'The Scout Mindset', which aims to teach people how to think more clearly and rationally. The book distinguishes between 'soldier mindset' (defending one's beliefs) and 'scout mindset' (seeking truth). It provides techniques for adopting a scout mindset, including probabilistic thinking and thought experiments. The book also addresses the emotional challenges of changing one's mind and uses examples of admirable people who have done so to normalize the practice. Scott notes that the book goes beyond just teaching rationality techniques and touches on personal growth and becoming a better person. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander advocates for 'Socratic grilling' as a valuable learning tool, urging people not to mistake genuine confusion and questioning for arrogance or challenges to authority. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of allowing and encouraging 'Socratic grilling' - a process where students ask challenging questions to resolve their confusion about a topic. He argues that this process, which may appear confrontational, is crucial for developing critical thinking skills and should not be discouraged. The post uses an example of a student questioning germ theory to illustrate how this process works and why it's valuable. Scott emphasizes that misinterpreting these questions as arrogance or challenges to authority can be detrimental to learning. He also touches on the difficulty of signaling a desire to learn without being accused of arrogance, especially in online discussions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes that confirmation bias might be a misapplication of normal Bayesian reasoning rather than a separate cognitive phenomenon. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses confirmation bias, suggesting it might not be a separate phenomenon from normal reasoning but rather a misapplication of Bayesian reasoning. He uses an example of believing a friend who reports seeing a coyote in Berkeley but disbelieving the same friend reporting a polar bear. Scott argues this is similar to how we process information that confirms or challenges our existing beliefs. He proposes that when faced with evidence contradicting strong priors, we should slightly adjust our beliefs while heavily discounting the new evidence. The post critiques an evolutionary psychology explanation of confirmation bias from a Fast Company article, suggesting instead that confirmation bias might be a result of normal reasoning processes gone awry rather than a distinct cognitive bias. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques therapy books, highlighting their exaggerated claims and questioning the validity of their approaches, based on his clinical experience and historical misdiagnoses in psychology. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the common patterns in therapy books, noting their tendency to promise miraculous results and criticize previous methods. He observes that while these books claim extraordinary success, his clinical experience doesn't match these claims. The post explores the concept of 'historicism' in therapy, where current problems are linked to past traumas, and questions the validity of this approach. Scott expresses skepticism about the dramatic transformations described in therapy books, comparing them to past misguided theories about mental health conditions. He concludes by warning readers to be cautious when evaluating individual therapy books, as they can be convincing in isolation but problematic when viewed as part of a larger trend. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the second Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where people with opposing views collaborate on essays about controversial topics for prizes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the second annual Adversarial Collaboration Contest on his blog. The contest encourages people with opposing views to collaborate on a balanced summary of evidence on a controversial topic. Participants form teams of two, write an essay together, and can win prize money. The post outlines the contest rules, including essay requirements, submission process, and judging criteria. Scott provides examples from the previous year's contest and explains how to find a collaboration partner through the blog's comments section. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of bias arguments in debates, explaining why they're often counterproductive and suggesting more constructive ways to address bias. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problems with using bias arguments in debates. He argues that these arguments are often unproductive because everyone is biased, people are hypersensitive to biases against their side, it's hard to define bias, and bias arguments don't lead anywhere productive. He suggests that bias arguments can be useful when they provide new information, can be quantified, offer unbiased alternatives, or in private conversations between trusted friends. Scott emphasizes that first-person bias arguments (recognizing one's own biases) are the most valuable, as they allow for honest self-reflection and improvement. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores 'epistemic learned helplessness', arguing it's often a rational defense against persuasive but false ideas, especially in unfamiliar fields. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'epistemic learned helplessness', where people refuse to believe arguments even when they seem logically sound. He argues that this is often a rational response to the fact that convincing arguments can be made for many false ideas, especially in fields where one lacks expertise. The post explores how this relates to beliefs in pseudohistory, fundamentalist religion, and fringe scientific theories. Scott suggests that while some ability to seriously consider new ideas is valuable, for most people, most of the time, a degree of epistemic learned helplessness is actually beneficial as a defense against bad arguments. He notes that the smartest and most rational people are often best at taking ideas seriously, but suggests this might be because they're capable of doing so without immediately falling for bad arguments. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the overuse of the term 'conspiracy theory' and provides heuristics for evaluating the plausibility of conspiratorial claims. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of conspiracy theories, arguing that the term is often overused and misapplied. He presents a list of various claims, ranging from political conspiracies to scientific misconduct, and analyzes which should be considered conspiracy theories. The post introduces the 'Basic Argument Against Conspiracy Theories' which states that large secret organizations are difficult to maintain without detection. Scott then applies this principle to various scenarios, showing how some seemingly conspiratorial ideas might not actually qualify as conspiracy theories. He concludes by offering heuristics for evaluating the plausibility of conspiracy claims, emphasizing that the size, secrecy, and self-interest of the groups involved are key factors to consider. 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 announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a contest for adversarial collaborations, where two people with opposing views on a topic work together to write a balanced summary of the evidence. The goal is to provide readers with a fair assessment of controversial issues. Scott offers a $1000 prize for the best collaboration, with potential for a $250 second-place prize. He outlines rules for the contest, including writing as a united front, coming to a unified conclusion, and allowing publication on Slate Star Codex. The post encourages participants to find collaborators in the comments section and suggests topics could range from political issues to medicine, history, or religion. Shorter summary

Scott reviews evidence on whether college improves critical thinking, finding modest short-term gains but questioning their long-term persistence. Longer summary

Scott examines the claim that college teaches critical thinking skills. He reviews several studies, finding modest evidence that college improves critical thinking, with effect sizes ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations. However, he notes limitations in the research, such as lack of long-term follow-up and potential confounding factors. Scott expresses skepticism about whether these gains persist after college, drawing parallels to other temporary developmental effects. He also discusses specific aspects of college that may contribute to critical thinking gains, finding little evidence for dedicated 'critical thinking' classes but some benefit from liberal arts education and certain study habits. Shorter summary

The post uses a fabricated narrative about cardiologists to illustrate the Chinese Robber Fallacy and its role in media bias, emphasizing the importance of context in interpreting negative stories about any group. Longer summary

This post discusses the Chinese Robber Fallacy and its implications for media bias. The author begins with a satirical section presenting numerous examples of cardiologists committing various crimes and unethical acts, creating the impression of widespread issues in the profession. The second part reveals this as a demonstration of how easy it is to create a false narrative about any group using selective examples. The author then explores how this fallacy applies to media coverage of issues like police brutality and sexism in tech, emphasizing the importance of understanding base rates and population sizes when interpreting such stories. The post concludes by revealing that the initial section about cardiologists was entirely fabricated to illustrate the point. Shorter summary

Scott criticizes the misuse of terms like 'debunked' in academic and political discourse, arguing for more nuanced examination of studies and their critiques. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of terms like 'debunked' and 'well-refuted' in academic and political discourse. Scott argues that these terms are often used to dismiss opposing views without proper consideration, using examples from debates on campus rape statistics and minimum wage studies. He emphasizes the importance of critically examining studies and their critiques, rather than blindly accepting claims of debunking. The post highlights the dangers of confirmation bias and the need for nuanced understanding of complex issues, rather than simplistic dismissals of opposing viewpoints. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander cautions against basing opinions on limited research, using examples from medicine and economics to show how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander warns against relying on a single study or a limited selection of studies to form opinions on complex issues. He illustrates this with examples from medical research and the minimum wage debate, showing how cherry-picking studies can lead to opposing conclusions. The post emphasizes the importance of considering the full body of evidence, including meta-analyses and expert opinions, while also being aware of potential biases in research and reporting. Scott concludes by advocating for skepticism and thorough investigation when evaluating claims backed by scientific studies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes a blog post criticizing rationalism, arguing it misunderstands the movement and its core values of empiricism, scholarship, and humility. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a blog post titled 'Why I Am Not A Rationalist' on Almost Diamonds, arguing that it fundamentally misunderstands both classical rationalism (Descartes) and modern rationalism (Yudkowsky). He points out that the blog post accuses rationalists of lacking empiricism, scholarship, and humility, when these are in fact core values of the rationalist movement. Scott provides numerous examples to demonstrate the rationalist community's commitment to these principles. He concludes by explaining why rationality skills are necessary in addition to empirical knowledge, especially when dealing with limited or conflicting information. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'isolated demands for rigor' across philosophy, politics, and science, criticizing the selective application of rigorous standards. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'isolated demands for rigor' using various examples. He starts with a philosophical thought experiment about Heraclitus and personal identity, then moves on to discuss how this concept applies in politics, science, and statistics. The post criticizes the selective application of rigorous standards only when it benefits one's argument or position, while ignoring these standards in other cases. Scott ends with a fictional scene featuring pre-Socratic philosophers in a Western setting, illustrating the absurdity of selectively applying philosophical concepts. Shorter summary

Scott argues that focusing on easily debunked fringe beliefs when discussing rationality can be counterproductive, potentially hampering people's ability to doubt their own beliefs and engage in critical thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the tendency to focus on easily debunked fringe beliefs like moon-hoaxing and homeopathy when discussing rationality. He argues that this approach is counterproductive, as it trains people to dismiss opposing views too quickly and lose the ability to doubt their own beliefs. The post suggests that constantly debunking obvious falsehoods can 'inoculate' people against questioning more complex issues, potentially hampering their ability to engage in genuine critical thinking and self-doubt. Scott emphasizes that true rationality involves recognizing one's own potential for error, even in strongly held beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander creates a political quiz to distinguish between object-level and meta-level thinking, based on consistent application of principles across different scenarios. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a political spectrum quiz designed to differentiate between 'Object-Level Thinkers' and 'Meta-Level Thinkers'. The quiz consists of pairs of questions on controversial political issues, where each pair tests the same principle but in different contexts. Participants are scored based on how consistently they apply principles across different scenarios. The post includes 12 questions (6 pairs), scoring instructions, and commentary on the quiz's inspiration and design. Scott also invites readers to suggest improvements or additional questions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander lists five reasons why Guy Fawkes Day should be forgotten, demonstrating how easy it is to generate arguments when one puts some thought into it. Longer summary

This post presents a list of five reasons why Guy Fawkes Day (Gunpowder Treason) should be forgotten. The reasons range from historical anti-Catholic bigotry to modern associations with internet culture. Scott Alexander provides this list not because he's against the celebration, but to demonstrate that it's possible to come up with reasons for something if one thinks about it for a few minutes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander outlines and criticizes ten fallacious argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's beliefs, demonstrating how they can be used to unfairly attack any position. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a series of argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's position by exaggerating or distorting their belief. He presents ten variations of this fallacious reasoning, each escalating the misrepresentation in a different way. These range from likening a belief to religious faith, to suggesting that holding a belief implies extreme fanaticism or hatred of opponents. The post concludes with a densely packed example combining all ten argument styles, using the mundane topic of wearing coats in cold weather to demonstrate how absurd these arguments can become when applied to any belief. Scott clarifies that while some of these issues can be real problems, these argument styles are 'fully general' and can be used to attack any position unfairly. Shorter summary