Scott explores why journalists struggle to write controversial articles about topics like COVID-19 due to experts' reluctance to be interviewed. Longer summary

Scott discusses the challenges journalists face when writing articles about controversial topics like COVID-19. He explains that experts are often hesitant to give interviews for fear of being misquoted or having their nuanced opinions stripped of context. This leads to a situation where it's easier to produce 'illegible knowledge' (like experts posting opinions on Twitter) than 'legible knowledge' (like well-sourced newspaper articles). Scott suggests this contributes to gaps between 'canonical knowledge' in prestigious news outlets and what one learns from following research closely. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his stance on the 'chemical imbalance' theory of depression, arguing that Mad In America's critique actually supports his view of a more nuanced understanding in psychiatry. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a critique of his previous post about the 'chemical imbalance' theory of depression by Mad In America. He argues that the critique misses his point and actually supports his thesis. Scott analyzes each example provided by Mad In America, showing how they generally present a nuanced view of depression and serotonin's role, rather than promoting a simplistic 'serotonin deficiency' model. He criticizes Mad In America for quoting out of context and misrepresenting the sources. Scott concludes that while the 'chemical imbalance' theory has been simplified in public discourse, the psychiatric community has generally been responsible in presenting the complexities and uncertainties of depression's causes and treatments. Shorter summary