Scott Alexander examines whether psychiatrists should test for lead more often, concluding that while it could be relevant in some cases, there's not enough evidence to justify universal testing. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the question of whether psychiatrists should test for lead more often in patients with mental health issues. He presents a case where lead poisoning was found to be a factor in a patient's psychiatric symptoms, and explores the broader implications of this. Scott then examines the complexities of deciding which potential factors to test for in psychiatric practice, given the numerous possible causes of depression and other mental health issues. He argues that while lead could be a factor in some cases, there's insufficient evidence to justify universal testing. He also discusses the challenges of interpreting and acting on test results, especially when they fall within normal ranges. Scott concludes by reflecting on different approaches to medical practice and the difficulties of balancing evidence-based guidelines with emerging theories and individual clinical judgment. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares and comments on highlights from Philip Tetlock's 'Superforecasting', discussing forecasting, cognitive biases, and organizational effectiveness. Longer summary

This post is a collection of highlights and commentary on Philip Tetlock's book 'Superforecasting'. Scott Alexander shares quotes from the book and provides his own analysis on topics such as evidence-based medicine, cognitive biases in forecasting, the importance of probabilistic thinking, and organizational effectiveness. He also reflects on the implications of these ideas for fields like intelligence analysis, politics, and rationality. Shorter summary

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist. Longer summary

This post is a humorous take on the common argument against evidence-based medicine that uses parachutes as an example. The author playfully suggests using those who make this argument as the control group in a parachute experiment, but then acknowledges that this would be unethical as groups need to be determined by random assignment. The post uses irony to subtly critique the flawed logic often used to dismiss evidence-based medicine. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a study showing no significant difference between CBT and psychodynamic therapy, challenging the idea that CBT is superior and exploring the possibility that most psychotherapies work through non-specific factors. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a recent study in the American Journal of Psychiatry comparing the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic therapy for depression. The study found no significant difference between the two therapies, challenging the common belief that CBT is superior. Scott reflects on how this contradicts the 'foundation myth' of psychiatry, which claims that evidence-based therapies like CBT replaced less scientific approaches like Freudian psychoanalysis. He explores the possibility that most psychotherapies work through non-specific factors rather than their specific theories or techniques, a concept known as the Dodo Bird Verdict. Scott suggests that CBT's reputation as evidence-based may be due to its proponents conducting more studies, rather than superior efficacy. He concludes by stating his belief that only very basic, targeted therapies have specific effects, while more complex theories of the mind likely rely on non-specific factors. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the life cycle of medical ideas, discussing how promising treatments often get stuck in a 'grey area' between proven and alternative medicine. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the life cycle of medical ideas, focusing on three examples from about five years ago: Zamboni's multiple sclerosis theory, Gat and Goren's prostatic hyperplasia theory, and minocycline for schizophrenia. He explores how the medical community responds to new ideas, the challenges of getting promising treatments approved and widely used, and the role of drug companies in this process. Scott notes a 'grey area' between proven medicine and alternative medicine, where promising ideas often languish, and reflects on the potential for new organizations to speed up the evaluation and adoption of these ideas. 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