Luisa Groher

There is not a genocide taking place in Gaza. There is a war. This kind of linguistic inflation inflames people against Jews and makes the meaning of the word genocide meaningless, making it hard to protect people in the future.

There are ways to express support for coexistence without promoting violence and I cannot speak to you specifically but the language of "the globalize the intifada movement" encourages a global intifada -- violence

The terror attack in Boulder, CO should provoke reflection. When you obsess relentlessly about Israel, when you march in support of Hamas and relay their propaganda without filter or critical reflection, you spread hatred and violence against Jews.

Confirmation bias isn't about being stubborn—it's about information processing efficiency gone wrong. Your brain conserves energy by seeking confirming evidence and avoiding the hard work of updating beliefs.

Bayesian updating is like being a good detective: Every piece of evidence should move your confidence needle, but how much depends on how surprising that evidence would be under different theories.

Nash equilibrium: The point where everyone's strategy is optimal given what everyone else is doing. Nobody can improve by changing alone. It's not the best outcome—just the stable one.

Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada Hello!

Just published a deep dive into how political debates online go sideways and how we talk past each other using common rhetorical tricks: Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada open.substack.com/pub/unreason...

Why Bayesian reasoning matters: It's the mathematical foundation for learning from experience. Without it, you're either too stubborn (ignoring evidence) or too flighty (overreacting to noise).

The key Bayesian insight: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they start with low prior probability. UFOs need stronger proof than traffic jams for the same reason.

Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada Hello!

Just published a deep dive into how political debates online go sideways and how we talk past each other using common rhetorical tricks: Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada open.substack.com/pub/unreason...

Anchoring bias: The first number you hear dramatically influences all subsequent judgments. Skilled negotiators know this—they throw out an extreme first offer to move the entire discussion.

Bayes' theorem shows why first impressions matter so much—they become your prior. But it also shows exactly how much new evidence should change those impressions. Both intuitions, now with math.

Loss aversion means people feel losses twice as intensely as equivalent gains. This is why "you'll save $100" is less motivating than "you'll lose $100 if you don't act." Same math, different psychology.

A Bayesian approach to expertise: Trust people more in domains where they've been consistently right before, especially when they've made surprising predictions that came true. Track records are priors.

The prisoner's dilemma isn't just a thought experiment—it explains why individually rational choices often lead to collectively terrible outcomes. Climate change, traffic jams, social media addiction.

Great reasoners treat beliefs as tools, not treasures. A belief's value lies in its predictive power and utility, not in how long you've held it or how good it makes you feel.

The conjunction fallacy: People often think specific conditions are more likely than general ones. A detailed scenario feels more plausible, but each additional detail makes it mathematically less probable.

Skin in the game improves reasoning. People think differently when they bear the consequences of being wrong. Ask: what does this person lose if they're mistaken?

The heartbreaking murder of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim should provoke reflection. When you obsess relentlessly about Israel, when you relay all of Hamas's propaganda without filter, without critical reflection, you spread hatred of Jews.

Good thinking requires distinguishing between what's possible, what's plausible, and what's probable. These are different standards requiring different levels of evidence.

Utilize the "pre-mortem": Before implementing a plan, imagine it has failed and ask "what went wrong?" This exposes blind spots your optimism conceals.

Bad reasoning thrives on ambiguity. When definitions are unclear, almost any argument can seem plausible. Define your terms before debating them.

The outside view beats the inside view: When predicting outcomes, look at the base rates of similar cases rather than the unique features that make your case "different."

Most policy debates suffer from the "compared to what?" problem. Critiquing a solution is easy; proposing a better alternative with fewer downsides is hard.

Good reasoning requires steel-manning, not straw-manning: Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponent's position, not the weakest.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence isn't just nice—it's necessary. The burden of proof scales with the implausibility of the assertion.

ad reasoning thrives on ambiguity. When definitions are unclear, almost any argument can seem plausible. Define your terms before debating them.

Good reasoning requires steel-manning, not straw-manning: Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponent's position, not the weakest.

Most policy debates suffer from the "compared to what?" problem. Critiquing a solution is easy; proposing a better alternative with fewer downsides is hard.

The few remaining hostages in Gaza are young men - braver than brave - who went out to protect their friends, families, strangers, and community. The right thing to do, the critical thing to do, is to achieve their release. Everything else is noise.