Scott Alexander responds to comments on his ivermectin article, discussing criticisms, the worms hypothesis, vaccine skepticism, and journalism quality. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's previous article about ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Scott responds to criticisms from ivmmeta.com, discusses the worms hypothesis with various commenters, addresses concerns about the TOGETHER trial, and shares perspectives on vaccine skepticism and journalism quality. He also reflects on his own writing process compared to traditional journalism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander recounts his frustrating attempt to conduct a study on a bipolar disorder screening test, highlighting the excessive bureaucratic hurdles that ultimately led to the study's abandonment. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his frustrating experience trying to conduct a study on the validity of a bipolar disorder screening test. He encounters numerous bureaucratic hurdles from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), including issues with consent forms, data security, and patient privacy. Despite his best efforts and those of his colleagues, the study is eventually abandoned due to the overwhelming regulatory burden. Scott reflects on how this experience has made him skeptical of the current research approval process, arguing that it disproportionately hinders small-scale, independent researchers while favoring large institutions. He concludes by expressing hope for reform in the scientific research process to make it more accessible and efficient. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that gender imbalances in certain movements are more likely due to inherent differences in interests between men and women rather than offensive attitudes, challenging the assumption that purging perceived sexism will achieve gender parity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges the assumption that gender imbalances in movements like libertarianism are primarily due to offensive attitudes. He presents examples of groups with poor gender equality reputations that still have balanced gender ratios, such as Trump voters and the Catholic Church. He then explores research on gender differences in interests, particularly the 'interest in things vs. people' dimension, which shows a large difference between men and women. Scott suggests these underlying differences in interests and approaches to morality (e.g., utilitarianism) may better explain gender imbalances in certain fields and movements. He argues that attempts to achieve gender balance by purging perceived sexism may be misguided and could lead to unnecessary conflict within these communities. The post concludes by emphasizing the need to fight harassment and build a better world, but not with the expectation that it will automatically lead to gender parity in all fields. Shorter summary