Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his 2021 ivermectin analysis, acknowledging some errors but maintaining his conclusion that ivermectin likely doesn't work for COVID-19. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Alexandros Marinos' critique of his 2021 post on ivermectin studies, addressing points about individual studies, meta-analysis methods, publication bias, and new evidence since 2021. He acknowledges some mistakes in his original analysis but maintains his overall conclusion that ivermectin is likely ineffective for COVID-19. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that psychology is indeed in crisis, contrary to a New York Times article's claim, due to issues like publication bias and low replication rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article claiming psychology is not in crisis despite low replication rates. He argues that the article ignores publication bias, experimenter effects, and low base rates of true hypotheses. Scott contends that even if failed replications are due to different conditions, this still represents a crisis as it undermines the practical utility of psychological findings. He suggests that while we can't investigate every failed replication, studying some might reveal why replication issues keep occurring in psychology. Shorter summary

The post deconstructs a growth mindset study, revealing that its positive claims in the abstract are not supported by the actual data, demonstrating the importance of critical analysis of scientific papers. Longer summary

The post critically analyzes a study on growth mindset interventions, revealing that the abstract's positive claims are not supported by the actual data. The author demonstrates how the study's results, when examined closely, show little to no effect of growth mindset interventions on students' academic performance. The post highlights the importance of reading beyond abstracts and titles, and critically examining scientific papers, especially in popular fields where publication bias may exist. The author uses this example to illustrate how careful analysis can reveal contradictions between a study's stated conclusions and its actual findings. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a study comparing the effectiveness of drugs and therapy for psychiatric disorders, discussing the results and methodological limitations of the research. Longer summary

This post analyzes a study comparing the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for various psychiatric disorders. The author discusses the graph showing effect sizes for different treatments, noting that most psychiatric treatments have an effect size around 0.5. He expresses some uncertainty about the statistical methods used and highlights three surprising findings: drugs appearing more effective than therapy for borderline personality disorder and insomnia, and drugs being more effective at preventing relapse than stopping acute episodes. The post also discusses the limitations of psychotherapy trials, noting that lower quality trials tend to show much higher effect sizes than high-quality ones, and that psychotherapy research often lacks sufficient blinding and control groups. 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 analyzes various criticisms of antidepressants, concluding they have modest but real benefits over placebo, with important considerations about side effects and efficacy. Longer summary

This post examines various criticisms of SSRIs and antidepressants, addressing claims about their efficacy, side effects, and comparisons to placebo and psychotherapy. Scott analyzes studies on antidepressant effectiveness, discussing issues like publication bias, effect sizes, and the meaning of 'clinical significance'. He explores side effects, particularly sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and emotional blunting. The post concludes that while antidepressants are not miracle drugs, they do have a modest but statistically significant benefit over placebo and can be a reasonable option for many people with depression, especially if they understand and prepare for potential side effects. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that '90% of medical research is false', arguing it's an exaggeration while acknowledging real issues in the field. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the popular claim that '90% of medical research is false', which is often attributed to John Ioannidis. He argues that this statement, while pointing to important issues, creates more panic than warranted. Scott analyzes Ioannidis' work, showing that the 90% figure is likely misinterpreted from various sources. He explains that the accuracy of medical research varies greatly depending on the type of study, with large randomized trials and meta-analyses being much more reliable. Scott also discusses how multiple studies on the same topic can greatly increase confidence in results, and how doctors' beliefs are typically based on substantial evidence rather than single studies. He concludes by acknowledging the problems in medical research while cautioning against overly cynical interpretations. Shorter summary