Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'light water' and its potential health benefits, critically analyzing various arguments while expressing fascination with this unexpected area of scientific inquiry. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'light water' (water depleted of deuterium) as a potential health treatment. He begins with a hypothetical scenario about poisoning Castro with heavy water, then explains the science behind isotopes of water. The post discusses various arguments for light water's health benefits, including evolutionary, molecular biology, and oncological perspectives. Scott critically examines these claims, pointing out flaws in some arguments while acknowledging that some cancer studies seem intriguing. He concludes by expressing fascination with the unexpected dimensions along which scientific inquiry can progress, even if the medical benefits of light water remain unproven. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the evolving narrative around a news story about ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma hospitals, illustrating how cognitive biases and media dynamics can distort information. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines a news story about ivermectin overdoses overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals, showing how it evolved from a local news report to international coverage, and was then seemingly debunked. He uses this as a case study in cognitive biases, media narratives, and the difficulty of determining truth in polarized situations. The post is structured in three parts, each revealing a new layer of complexity and uncertainty in the story. Scott emphasizes the importance of skepticism and checking sources, even (or especially) when a story confirms one's existing beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes that confirmation bias might be a misapplication of normal Bayesian reasoning rather than a separate cognitive phenomenon. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses confirmation bias, suggesting it might not be a separate phenomenon from normal reasoning but rather a misapplication of Bayesian reasoning. He uses an example of believing a friend who reports seeing a coyote in Berkeley but disbelieving the same friend reporting a polar bear. Scott argues this is similar to how we process information that confirms or challenges our existing beliefs. He proposes that when faced with evidence contradicting strong priors, we should slightly adjust our beliefs while heavily discounting the new evidence. The post critiques an evolutionary psychology explanation of confirmation bias from a Fast Company article, suggesting instead that confirmation bias might be a result of normal reasoning processes gone awry rather than a distinct cognitive bias. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes branded combination nootropics, explaining why they are often ineffective or harmful, and advises careful individual experimentation with single substances instead. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes branded combination nootropics, arguing they are often poorly designed and potentially harmful. He begins by mocking the ridiculous names and exaggerated claims of many such products, then explains why even well-intentioned combinations are problematic. The post discusses how nootropics affect individuals differently, making one-size-fits-all approaches ineffective. Scott emphasizes the importance of careful individual experimentation with single substances, rather than relying on pre-made combinations. He also cautions against assuming synergistic effects between different nootropics, noting that even well-studied psychiatric drug combinations often fail to show benefits. The post concludes by advising readers to approach nootropics cautiously and individually, rather than relying on branded combinations. Shorter summary

A fictional G.K. Chesterton essay defends AI risk concerns against criticisms, arguing that seemingly fantastical ideas often become reality and that contemplating the infinite leads to practical progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a fictional essay in the style of G.K. Chesterton, responding to criticisms of AI risk concerns. The essay argues that dismissing AI risk as fantastical is shortsighted, drawing parallels to historical skepticism of now-realized technological advancements. It refutes arguments that AI risk believers neglect real-world problems, citing examples of their charitable work. The piece emphasizes the importance of contemplating the infinite for driving progress and solving practical problems, suggesting that AI, like other seemingly fantastical ideas, may well become reality. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critically examines pharmacogenomic testing for antidepressants, particularly the GeneSight test, expressing skepticism about its current effectiveness and validity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critically examines the field of pharmacogenomics for antidepressants, particularly focusing on the GeneSight test. He reviews the scientific evidence, discusses potential flaws in studies, and expresses skepticism about the current state and effectiveness of such testing. The post delves into the complexities of antidepressant metabolism, the challenges of predicting drug response, and the limitations of current genetic testing approaches. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a Buzzfeed article skeptical of growth mindset research, arguing that while skepticism is warranted, more robust evidence is needed to disprove the theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a Buzzfeed article criticizing growth mindset research, particularly the work of Carol Dweck. While acknowledging the hype around growth mindset and his own skepticism, Scott argues that the article's critique is not sufficiently robust. He points out that despite the reasons to be suspicious, the growth mindset studies have shown strong results. Scott identifies three main criticisms in the Buzzfeed piece but finds them lacking in strength to fully debunk the theory. He emphasizes the importance of thorough, evidence-based criticism rather than relying on intuition or weak arguments. Scott warns against dismissing potentially valid research too quickly, using an analogy to climate change denial tactics. He concludes by calling for more rigorous efforts to disprove growth mindset if it is indeed flawed. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming to have found biomarkers for suicide risk, arguing that the results are overstated and such a test would have limited clinical utility even if accurate. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming to have found biomarkers predicting suicide risk with 92% accuracy. He points out that most of the predictive power likely comes from clinical instruments rather than biomarkers, and that the biomarkers alone were insignificant in 7 out of 8 tests. Even if the 92% accuracy claim were true, Scott argues it wouldn't be very useful in practice due to the low base rate of suicide attempts. He concludes that while research on biological factors in suicide is valuable, a blood test for suicide is unlikely to ever be clinically useful due to the complex nature of suicide involving both biological and environmental factors. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains how to interpret 23andMe genetic data using SNPedia, listing various SNPs and their alleged effects while emphasizing the unreliability of such interpretations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander humorously explores how to use 23andMe genetic testing data 'irresponsibly' by looking up various SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) and their purported effects. He provides instructions on how to access raw genetic data from 23andMe and interpret it using SNPedia. The post then lists several interesting SNPs associated with traits like violence, empathy, anxiety, divorce risk, and longevity. Scott repeatedly emphasizes that these associations are often unreliable, exaggerated, or misinterpreted, and should be taken as entertainment rather than medical advice. Shorter summary