Live data from Hacker News

Update on My Situation

slatestarcodex.com

31–40 of 142 posts

Re: Update on My Situation

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His new practice will be medication management, not psychotherapy.

When people go this route, do they still see or talk to another therapist? I always figured people's chemical imbalances were influenced by behavior. If you just treat the chemical imbalance without addressing the behavior, isn't that rather risky?

They do. Psychotherapists cannot prescribe medication but are licensed to deliver psychotherapy. Psychiatrists, who are MDs, can prescribe medication but also can do psychotherapy if they choose to do so. I even know psychiatrists that only do psychotherapy and won't do medication management. To complicate further, non-psychiatrist MDs can also prescribe certain classes of psychotropic medication.

Either way, pharmacotherapy is rarely administered alone, usually psychotherapists refer patients to psychiatrists if they believe pharmacotherapy can be beneficial, and with patient's consent they can share notes. He will be that therapist.

Re: Update on My Situation

#32
Good psychiatrists who can also do therapy are worth their weight in gold. I think this is a huge loss for anyone that made and could make use of his psychotherapy. It would have also been a loss for the rest of the world to not make use of his writing. Either way this made the world a worse place. Thus is the banality of evil.

Re: Update on My Situation

#34

Sad that Alexander has had to leave his job because some petulant reporter thought he was a sufficiently public figure for a takedown, but good for him and Substack for making sure he landed on his feet. A personal hit job by one of the most powerful institutions on the planet (or rather, their mouthpiece) is no small life event.

It doesn't appear that's true, unfortunately - there's no takedown or article :/ As he notes, it was essentially the Streisand effect.

Re: Update on My Situation

#35
post #22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. The recent issue with the NYT is certainly the immediate trigger of Scott Alexander's decision to change jobs; but it seems to me at least that this course of action was inevitable (once the blog became popular). If (you feel that) your job is incompatible with a personal association to a popular 'rationalist' blog, and you write a rationalist blog under your own partial name, and it then becomes popular…

> If (you feel that) your job is incompatible with a personal association to a popular 'rationalist' blog, and you write a rationalist blog under your own partial name, and it then becomes popular - well you will have to take that decision at some point - resign, or shut down the blog. Scott did shut down the blog and it still cost him his job.

He brought the blog back. It sounds like Substack made him an offer before he talked to his employer.[1] And he said the plan to leave his job was a mutual decision. What makes you sure shutting down the blog for good wasn't an option?

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/i10p4m/surv...

Re: Update on My Situation

#36

I would like someone with the funds to do so to simply become his patron, and give him a salary to do what the hell he likes, ala medieval Europe. He’s got to have enough very wealthy fans that this is realistic?

I am under the impression that this is essentially what Substack offered him if he started writing on their platform?

Re: Update on My Situation

#37
post #6

> And now that I’ve publicly admitted privacy is important to me – something I tried to avoid coming on too strong about before, for exactly this reason – some people have taken it upon themselves to post my real name all over Twitter in order to harass and threaten me. Has anybody applied the Dark Forest metaphor to internet publicity? It's fascinating (horrifying) how simply catching the attention of too big a piec…

One strategy might be to not hit the self destruct button prematurely. Far more people have read and shared his blog post about being doxxed than have read the NYT article.

Re: Update on My Situation

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that doesn't mesh with "start my own private practice." Either those concerns apply to his original job and his new practice, or neither. Something doesn't seem to add up...

my original thesis was, and I got quite a lot of flack for it at the time, that it's going to mightily piss his patients off if they ever figure out that he's blogging about them, if only in anonymized form. I think this really is the issue here with his employer, and I honestly always found it extremely weird, maybe unethical that he wants to avoid his patients figuring out that their stories may appear on a public…

Ah. Thank you! That’s an entirely reasonable theory that fits the data. I didn’t realize he blogged about his patients.

Do you happen to know of any examples of articles he published along those lines? Now I’m curious what he said...

Re: Update on My Situation

#39
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't even have to have done anything controversial. Attention itself appears to be caustic, at the extreme. I haven't read it but I assumed the blog was controversial based on all the concern about anonymity. Is that not the case?

He’s not controversial if you believe in reality. A good example of something that may get him attacked is his anti-creationist post, https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/creationism-unchalleng... . Any time you criticize the crazies you get attacked.

Ehh, I generally like his reasoning and thought process. But his bread-and-butter is writing about controversial topics.

Re: Update on My Situation

#40
post #16
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Background: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-... > First, I’m a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work. You can read more about this in this Scientific American article – and remember that the last psychiatrist blogger to get doxxed abandoned his blog too. I am not one of the big stickler…

I think this doesn't really answer the question, though. Psychiatrists like to do X - is that because they follow a cargo cult of other psychiatrists who do X, or because there's empirical evidence that not-X is bad for patient outcomes (or bad for doctor outcomes - he has repeatedly mentioned concerns over his physical security)? This is exactly the kind of question I'd expect SSC to tackle thoughtfully on his blog…

Imagine you go to a therapist for years, then find out he's been talking about you on his blog. Now, imagine you have a friend, family member or co-worker who happens to know you see that therapist and that he has a blog online. The therapist does a good job of anonymizing the clients he's talking about, so your friend doesn't know exactly which posts (if any!) pertain to you. So he has to guess. Hilarity ensues.
Post reply on HN