The post analyzes survey data to examine if effective altruism attracts people with mental disorders, finding slightly higher rates of autism but no evidence of unusual self-hate or scrupulosity. Longer summary

This post examines the theory that effective altruism (EA) attracts people with mental disorders. The author analyzes data from a Less Wrong survey, comparing rates of mental illness between EA and non-EA respondents. The findings show that EAs have similar levels of anxiety and OCD, slightly higher rates of depression, and significantly higher rates of autism compared to non-EAs. The post also discusses the relationship between consequentialism, gender, and EA, noting that EAs are much more consequentialist than non-EAs. The author concludes that while EAs may be slightly more autistic, they are not unusually self-hating or scrupulous compared to other rationalists, though both groups may differ from the general population in various ways. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a study showing positive effects of early intervention on at-risk children, but questions its policy implications due to high costs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a study on early intervention programs for at-risk children, which showed positive effects on various outcomes at age 25. The study, a randomized controlled trial, found that intensive interventions costing $60,000 per child reduced the odds of developing psychiatric disorders, substance abuse problems, and engaging in criminal behavior. While the results are scientifically interesting, Scott points out some limitations and questions the cost-effectiveness from a policy perspective. He notes that the intervention didn't affect all outcomes equally and that the high cost might not justify the benefits when compared to existing educational spending. 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