Often in health and longevity discussions, you'll hear arguments about mechanisms. For instance: Antioxidants -> reduced free radicals -> less DNA damage -> less cancer Unfortunately, these biologically plausible-sounding claims usually don't work when rigorously tested. Are mechanistic arguments useless? No. They are a great source of *hypotheses*. While most of these hypoth...

It’s almost always a waste of time debating definitions with people (“semantic debates”). Just stop for a moment to define terms or switch to using the other person's definition so you don’t talk past each other. Definitions can be whatever we want them to be, and most of the time the important thing is just that our definitions match closely enough so that we can communicate effectively. Atte...

What is the point of tariffs, in general? Lots of countries have them, to at least a small degree. It's rarer that countries use them to a large degree. Why? My understanding is that there are four main reasons tariffs get put in place: (1) Special interests that benefit from tariffs lobby for them at the expense of everyone else. This is obviously a bad reason to have tariffs. (2) Somet...

Self-reporting on surveys seems ridiculously unreliable. People can lie or may not pay attention. People misremember things. People often lack self-insight. And YET, self-reporting fairly often works remarkably well in measuring things. Here are some examples: (1) In a large study we ran, IQ (measured by performance on intelligence tasks) had a strong correlation with self-reported (remembered...

Is the idea of IQ legit or total B.S.? With the replication crisis in social science, it's worth asking this since a number of major psychology findings didn't hold up under scrutiny. To find out, at Clearer Thinking, we ran a massive study. We tested thousands of people performing random subsets of 62 diverse cognitive tasks (vocab, math, logic, pattern recognition, reaction time, games, m...

People often assume that public figures who spread false information are just “liars.” Still, I think it’s more accurate and useful to realize there are at least five distinct and important types of misinformation spreaders: 1) Narcissistic deceivers: they don’t track or even consider whether what they are saying is true; they say what feels good to them. This relates to what philosophers call...

Predictions of extinction are not like other predictions for at least two reasons: You can’t reason based on track record in the same way you can with normal predictions. The stakes are extremely high. Being wrong on normal predictions rarely matters as much. Why? Regarding point one, reasoning based on track record: Normally, a type of prediction being wrong again and again will...

We gathered >1 million human correlations spanning personality, demographics, behaviors, and beliefs, which enabled us to investigate an interesting question: is everything correlated with everything? In other words, is the so-called "crud factor" real? Here's our answer. On average, there is almost no correlation between human variables (see image). The average is only r=0.02, with the median...

I've recently been thinking that there are 4 main categories of educators who are trying to correct bad thinking or help improve rational thinking and that 3 out of 4 of them are essential for improving critical thinking across society (whereas one type is probably harmful): Child education: those who aim to teach children "critical thinking," - which often (but not always) means teaching the...