Scientific American
Article
Scientific American is a recurring publication in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between February 14, 2021 and December 22, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as “This is the standard consensus in the psychiatric profession – see this Scientific American article for more information”; “Scientific American attacks late biologist EO Wilson”; “pivot at Scientific American from real science to culture warring”. It most often appears alongside New York Times, 1984, Anatoly Karlin.
Metadata
- Category: Publications
- Mention count: 3
- Issue count: 3
- First seen: February 14, 2021
- Last seen: December 22, 2022
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- New York Times (3 shared issues)
-
- 1984 (1 shared issues)
-
- Anatoly Karlin (1 shared issues)
-
- AnechoicMedia (1 shared issues)
-
- artificial intelligence (1 shared issues)
-
- Astralcodexten (1 shared issues)
-
- Australia (1 shared issues)
-
- Bay Area (1 shared issues)
-
- Bible (1 shared issues)
-
- Biden (1 shared issues)
-
- BMJ (1 shared issues)
-
- Bounded Distrust (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
I was grateful for the interest, but still objected that I didn’t want my real name revealed to everyone. I think patients having too personal a relationship with their psychiatrist interferes with care. Patients being able to read my daily thoughts about everything – including medicine and psychiatry – would inevitably cause this sort of inappropriately personal relationship. This is the standard consensus in the psychiatric profession – see this Scientific American article for more information, and it was the advice I received from various past mentors and other psychiatrists I consulted about this. The article also made me concerned for my safety, since there are some scary stories about Internet-famous people whose identities get revealed getting stalked or attacked or something.
Inline links: this Scientific American article
Scientific American attacks late biologist EO Wilson, in a screed whose highlight is calling him problematic for describing ants as having “colonies”. This is part of a more general (and surprisingly fast) pivot at Scientific American from real science to culture warring; when even Eric Turkheimer thinks you’ve gotten too woke, you’ve gotten too woke.
Inline links: highlight, even Eric Turkheimer thinks you’ve gotten too woke
So Infowars often provides accurate data, but interprets it incorrectly, without necessary context. They’re not alone in this; it’s much like how the New York Times reports on real child EEG data but interprets it incorrectly, or how Scientific American reports real data on women in STEM but interprets it incorrectly, etc. This doesn’t mean these establishment papers are exactly as bad as Infowars; just that when they do err, it’s by committing a more venial version of the same sin Infowars commits.