The post challenges the notion that effect sizes below 0.50 for medications are clinically insignificant, using antidepressants as a case study and comparing them to other common drugs. Longer summary

This post discusses the interpretation of effect sizes in medical studies, particularly for antidepressants. It challenges the common notion that effect sizes below 0.50 are clinically insignificant. The author presents a Danish study that simulates various hypothetical medications, showing that even drugs that cure or significantly improve depression in a large percentage of patients might not meet traditional effect size thresholds. The post explains why these thresholds might be unrealistic due to factors like the placebo effect, high standard deviations in placebo groups, and patient dropouts. It also compares antidepressant effect sizes to those of other widely accepted medications, concluding that many common drugs would be considered 'clinically insignificant' by strict effect size standards. The author suggests that claims about 'meaningless effect sizes' should be given less weight compared to other evidence, such as clinical experience. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that despite some replication failures, the core of behavioral economics remains valid and valuable, with the field continuing to evolve and refine its understanding of human decision-making. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Jason Hreha's article claiming the 'death of behavioral economics'. He argues that while some studies have failed to replicate, the core insights of behavioral economics remain valid. Scott examines the historical origins of loss aversion, discusses recent debates about its existence, and argues that even small effect sizes can be valuable at scale. He concludes that behavioral economics as a field is generally healthy, continuing to investigate and refine our understanding of human decision-making, though specific paradigms may evolve over time. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander warns about the potential misinterpretation of odds ratios in studies, explaining how to convert them to effect sizes for more accurate understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential for misinterpreting odds ratios in statistical studies, using a personal anecdote from a journal club. He explains how odds ratios can seem more significant than they actually are, and provides a method for converting them to effect sizes for better interpretation. The post includes a reference to Chen's study on interpreting odds ratios in epidemiological studies and gives an example of how a seemingly impressive odds ratio can translate to a more modest effect size. Scott emphasizes the importance of careful comparison between studies that report results using different metrics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander revisits his stance on SSRIs, discussing new meta-analyses, broader trends in psychiatric medication efficacy, and potential explanations for the discrepancy between statistical and clinical observations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander updates his views on SSRIs, addressing four key points: 1) A meta-analysis confirming the effect size of antidepressants is about 0.3. 2) The low effect size of SSRIs is part of a broader trend of low effect sizes in psychiatric medications. 3) A hypothesis to reconcile the small statistical effect with strong clinical observations, suggesting SSRIs might work very well for a subset of patients. 4) The possibility that SSRIs' efficacy for anxiety might contribute to their perceived effectiveness for depression. Shorter summary

Scott reviews evidence on whether college improves critical thinking, finding modest short-term gains but questioning their long-term persistence. Longer summary

Scott examines the claim that college teaches critical thinking skills. He reviews several studies, finding modest evidence that college improves critical thinking, with effect sizes ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations. However, he notes limitations in the research, such as lack of long-term follow-up and potential confounding factors. Scott expresses skepticism about whether these gains persist after college, drawing parallels to other temporary developmental effects. He also discusses specific aspects of college that may contribute to critical thinking gains, finding little evidence for dedicated 'critical thinking' classes but some benefit from liberal arts education and certain study habits. 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 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