I used to think that psychiatry-blogging was Scott Alexander’s most useful/least harmful writing, because its his profession and an underserved topic. But he has his agenda to preach race pseudoscience and 1920s-type eugenics, and he has written in some ethical grey areas like stating a named friend’s diagnosis and desired course of treatment. He is in a community where many people tell themselves that their substance use is medicinal and want proscriptions. Someone on SneerClub thinks he mixed up psychosis and schizophrenia in a recent post.
If you are in a registered profession like psychiatry, it can be dangerous to casually comment on your colleagues. Regardless, has anyone with relevant qualifications ever commented on his psychiatry blogging and whether it is a good representation of the state of knowledge?
Good point that SlateScott commented on accusations of abuse in rationalist and adjacent organizations. Would the Goldwater Rule have applied? At least there has been some reporting on those accusations but I don’t know if it was on the ground or just phoning and emailing people from NYC, Chicago, or LA.
Someone with biochem, pharmacy, or psychology training could comment on some things SlateScott has written.