Scott Alexander argues that a purely biological, apolitical taxonomy of mental disorders is impossible due to ethical and practical considerations that inevitably influence classifications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the limitations of creating a purely biological, apolitical taxonomy of mental disorders. He argues that such a taxonomy is inherently impossible because the classification of mental disorders is not just a scientific issue, but also a practical and ethical one. Using examples like transgender identity, homosexuality, and pedophilia, he demonstrates how biological similarities can conflict with ethical and practical considerations in classification. The post highlights the tension between scientific accuracy, stigma avoidance, and ensuring access to necessary care. Scott concludes that new taxonomies like HiTOP are still useful, but claims of avoiding political bias in disorder classification are unrealistic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines taxometrics in psychiatry, finding that most mental health conditions are dimensional rather than categorical, and discusses the implications for diagnosis and treatment. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of taxometrics, which studies whether psychiatric conditions are categorical or dimensional. He explains the difference between categorical distinctions (like humans vs. rabbits) and dimensional variations (like height), and discusses how taxometric methods attempt to determine which psychiatric conditions fall into each category. The post then reviews recent meta-analyses suggesting that most psychiatric conditions are dimensional rather than categorical, contrary to some expectations. Scott reflects on the implications of this for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, suggesting a move away from binary thinking about mental health conditions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the inefficiency of psychiatric care for poverty-related issues, suggesting a Basic Income Guarantee as a potentially more effective solution. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the inefficiency of psychiatric care for patients whose primary issue is poverty. He relates a case where a suicidal patient, in debt for $5000, is hospitalized at a cost of $5000, which doesn't address the underlying financial problem. The post criticizes the current system as wasteful and patronizing, highlighting the dilemma between libertarian and liberal approaches to such issues. Scott suggests that a Basic Income Guarantee might be more effective and cost-efficient than current psychiatric interventions for poverty-related issues, potentially saving money in both psychiatric care and prison systems. Shorter summary