Scott Alexander argues that the right to waive one's rights can be beneficial, using examples from psychiatry and game theory to illustrate his point. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the tension between protecting individuals from exploitative contracts and maintaining the freedom to enter into voluntary agreements. He argues that restrictions on contracts, while sometimes necessary, can have unintended negative consequences. Using his experience as a psychiatrist, he illustrates how the inability to waive certain rights can lead to worse outcomes for patients. He suggests that the ability to waive rights can actually be a form of empowerment, allowing individuals to make decisions that best suit their unique circumstances. The post concludes by drawing parallels to game theory, suggesting that the ability to limit one's options can sometimes be strategically advantageous. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques standard psychiatric responses to psychotic patients and proposes more honest, nuanced alternatives based on individual patient circumstances. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his experience at the Michigan Psychiatric Society conference, focusing on how psychiatrists should respond to psychotic patients who ask if they are believed. He critiques a prestigious psychiatrist's standard response as condescending and potentially enraging to patients. Scott then explores alternative responses he'd like to give, emphasizing honesty and acknowledging the patient's perspective. He also addresses the common question 'Do you think I'm crazy?', suggesting that the standard answers aren't always helpful and proposing more nuanced responses based on the patient's situation and personality. Shorter summary