The Studies Show

Petrol, pipes, paint: they made a whole generation duller. That’s if you believe the research on the effects of lead on IQ. By interfering with neurological development, the lead that we used to encounter routinely has left hundreds of millions of us with a tiny bit of brain damage.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the toxic effects of lead - from very obvious, high-dose lead poisoning to the more insidious, low-level effects that have apparently held millions of people back. How strong is the evidence for the effects of low-level lead exposure on IQ?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, a journal of ideas to accelerate human progress. If you’re a student aged 18-22 and want to attend the Works in Progress “Invisible College” this August (at which Stuart is speaking), take a look at this link.Show Notes* Centers for Disease Control (CDC) page on lead poisoning* Articles on the history of lead poisoning from the BBC and the Guardian* 2022 PNAS study concluding that “half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood” (the one with the “824,097,690” figure)* Article on blood lead levels and which are considered dangerous* The 2005 meta-analysis on lead and children’s IQs* Cited in the 2021 “Global Lead Exposure Report”* The critique from the CDC in 2007* The critique paper from 2013* The critique paper from 2016* The correction from 2019* The critique paper from 2020* Quasi experiments: from Rhode Island; using manufacturing employment* 2018 paper on low-level lead and all-cause mortalityCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Preventing cancer. Curing depression. Single-handedly ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Oh, and something to do with your bones. Is there anything Vitamin D can’t do?Maybe the answer is: “quite a lot”. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the claims about the wondrous powers of Vitamin D supplements - and whether any of them have any decent evidence behind them. The whole story turns out to be a perfect parable for how to think about health research.📚Buy Tom’s book, Everything is Predictable, at this link! And join us at the book launch in London on 16th May 2024! 📚The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine: the stylish, well-argued, data-packed place to read essays about science, technology and human progress. Find their latest issue at this link.Show notes* Rupa Huq MP’s article from during the COVID pandemic on how the government should be “shouting about Vitamin D”* Huq and David Davis MP convince the government to recommend Vitamin D* Stuart’s New Statesman article on why this was jumping the gun a little* How Vitamin D regulates calcium and phosphorus metabolism in the body* Might it slow tumour growth? Or prevent cardiovascular disease? Evidence from rats* Observational studies on how Vitamin D levels are related to: depression, cognitive impairment, cancer rates, cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality* Review paper claiming widespread deficiency in Vitamin D* Scientific American article including discussion of the confusion over what it means to be “deficient” in, and/or have an “insufficiency” of Vitamin D* 2019 paper reporting results from the VITAL trial on cancer and cardiovascular risk* D-health trial results on cancer risk and cardiovascular risk* From the D-health trial, papers reporting no effect of Vitamin D supplementation on: cognitive impairment, depression, microbiome diversity, telomere length, hypothyroidism, erectile dysfunction, falls, fractures* Classic xkcd cartoon on false-positive jelly beans* 2022 Nature Reviews Endrocrinology review on the (lack of) evidence for the effects of Vitamin D beyond bone-related problems* Story of UK man who died of a Vitamin D overdose* Vitamin D and COVID: the promising observational study; the null trialCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

We can all agree that being lonely is bad. But apparently, science shows it’s really, really bad. Indeed, being lonely is so dangerous to your health that its equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. And it gets worse: we’re in the middle of a loneliness epidemic, meaning that the health of millions is at risk.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask two questions: is there actually a loneliness epidemic? And does it make sense to compare loneliness to something as bad for you as smoking cigarettes?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Click here to see the latest issue, packed with essays on YIMBYism, clinical research, Russian history, railway tunnels, and more.Show notes* The US Surgeon General’s report into “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation”* Articles on the loneliness epidemic from the BBC, NPR, the BBC again, the New York Times, the New York Times again, and Science magazine* 2023 article in The Times (London) that makes the 15-cigarettes-a-day comparison* The 2017 Jo Cox report on “Combatting Loneliness”* 2010 meta-analysis of social relationships and mortality risk* American Time Use Survey, 2003-2020* Meta-Gallup poll from 2022 on “The Global State of Social Connections”* Are US older adults getting lonelier (2019 study)? What about “emerging adults” (2021 meta-analysis)?* Comparison between younger-old people and older-old people on their loneliness levels* 2017 review study on the health effects of loneliness* 2023: systematic review no.1, systematic review no.2, both into the effects of loneliness on health* 2005 study on the health effects of smoking tobaccoCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comThe evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for young people with gender dysphoria is “remarkably weak”. That’s according to the Cass Review, a new in-depth report commissioned by NHS England.As you might imagine, the report’s conclusions have been somewhat controversial. In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart read through the Cass Report, consider the arguments of its critics, and try to put the whole thing in context.

Several previous episodes of The Studies Show have covered depression and treatments for it, but none have really considered what depression is. It’s time to do that. It turns out that some scientists have made serious critiques of the standard way of thinking about depression, and argue that we need a revolution in the way we measure it.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart take nothing for granted - they look into the idea of “latent variables”, read the studies critiquing the concept of a single, monolithic “depression”, and talk about what this all means for how we treat people with these often-terrible symptoms.We’re proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, which is, as they put it, “a magazine of new and underrated ideas to improve the world”. You can find their beautifully-illustrated and detailed essays on all kinds of scientific and technological subjects at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Our World in Data on depression prevalence* And covering some of the problems in estimating depression prevalence* Meta-analysis on antidepressant trials* Study looking at how depression rates have (or haven’t) changed over time* Article criticising the serotonin hypothesis of depression…* …and a rebuttal* Study showing how tricky it is to find replicable brain correlates of things like depression* Eiko Fried’s website, with his blog and links to his papers* Study on “the 52 symptoms of major depression”* Study showing how depression measures might not be measuring the same thing over time* Study showing that the same seems not to be true for intelligence* Article “revisiting” (strongly critiquing) the theoretical and empirical basis for depression research* A new-ish statistical way of thinking about the symptoms of depression: as part of a dynamic networkCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World. That’s the new book—out on April 25 in the UK and May 7 in the US—by our very own Tom Chivers!In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cover some of the historical sections of the book, and talk about where some of our basic ideas about probability come from (it turns out to be a weird combination of inveterate gamblers and Presbyterian ministers).The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress Magazine - the best place online to find deep discussions of the ideas that have driven human progress, and that might drive it even further in future. The latest issue of Works in Progress is available right now, at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* The only citation that matters this week: Tom’s new book, Everything is Predictable. It’s available NOW for pre-order in the UK, and in the US. * And for those reading this on Substack, here’s the rather lovely front cover:CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Microplastics are everywhere: there are teeny-tiny plastic particles in your drinking water, your food, your air - and perhaps even in your internal organs. How worried should you be?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the research on microplastics, covering all the reasons that the health effects of microscopic particles are not straightforward to study. They also look in detail at a scary new study that apparently found, according to one headline, that microplastics “could raise [your] risk of stroke and heart attack”.Russian serfs! Railroad tunnels! Silkworms! The Zika virus! What do they all have in common? They’re all the subjects of fascinating, data-rich articles in the latest issue of Works in Progress magazine. We’re proud to say that Works in Progress sponsors The Studies Show.Show notes* The website of The Ocean Cleanup: the org removing vast amounts of macroplastic from the seas, and stopping it getting there in the first place* Zebrafish study showing how dyes can leach out of microplastics and cause confusion for researchers* Study on the effects of the solvent/dispersant, as well as the characteristics of micrplastics, on cells* Review study noting the problem of bouyancy for in vitro microplastic studies* Review of health effects of microplastics, with a list of methodological problems for the field (and suggestions for how to solve them)* Another even more recent review* Widely-cited 2017 study of mice and microplastics…* …strongly criticised in a follow-up letter* The new NEJM study on microplastics, carotid artery plaques, and health* Coverage in the Guardian, The Conversation, and Medical XpressCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

As an extra way of thanking our paid subscribers, we’re going to post some shorter episodes in addition to the usual weekly hour-long ones.This first short episode (available to everyone for free; after this they’re paid-only) is about the idea of Emotional Intelligence. Does your “EQ” matter as much as your “IQ”? How can you even test that, anyway?To listen to future short episodes, as well as accessing all our paid-only stuff, you need to become a paid subscriber. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options.Show notes* Useful debate paper from 2022 between proponents and sceptics of emotional intelligence researchCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comMost people think it’s obvious that you should wear a helmet when cycling. It might save your life if you fall off and hit your head. Duh. But over the years, many contrarian arguments have pushed back against this seemingly-obvious point. What if people engage in “risk compensation”, where they cycle more dangerously because they know they’re wearing a helmet? What about if encouraging helments puts people off cycling so they miss the health benefits?In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try to work out who’s right.To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options. If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you!

We all love to cite meta-analyses. They’re the review studies where scientists take every single piece of research ever published on a particular question, and then calculate the overall “true” effect across all of them. Putting together all those studies is a much better way to get to the truth… isn’t it?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart give a intro to meta-analysis, and then talk about several major problems with the whole idea. Is meta-analysis—relied upon for making so many important scientific decisions, and cited in so many of our previous episodes—in serious need of a rethink?We’re proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re intrested in in-depth, data-rich articles on often-surprising topics relating to human progress, history of technology, and scientific discovery, there’s no better place than WiP. Their most recent February 2024 issue is replete with articles on organ markets, vaccine challenge trials, the underappreciated power of silk, and much more. Check it out at this link.Show notes* Slide show from the Cochrane Collaboration on the basics of meta-analysis* Description of the GRADE guidelines for assessing study quality* Below is a funnel plot, a method of testing for publication bias in meta-analysis. Source: we asked an AI to randomly generate some data and display it in a funnel plot, just for illustration. This funnel plot is relatively symmetrical and probably wouldn’t indicate much publication bias:* Criticism of funnel plots; Nature news reporting on the criticism* Stuart’s Substack article on the homeopathy meta-analysis (and the retraction note for that meta-analysis)* The PET-PEESE technique for meta-analysis; and a criticism of it* Useful paper that compares between different bias-correction methods for meta-analysis* The p-curve website, which has the paper explaining the technique and a useful app where you can do your own p-curve* Stuart’s Substack article on the meta-analysis on “nudges”* Further criticism of the nudge meta-analysis, with important points about “meaningless means” (and yet more criticism)CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Don’t worry, it’s nothing important this week - only the origin of all life on planet Earth. No biggie. Sure, life evolved by natural selection, but to get evolution going, you need to have life in the first place. So where did it come from?Scientists have theories about “abiogenesis” - the moment around 3.5 billion years ago when, having never existed before, biology began. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the theories, and some of the recent studies where scientists have tried to recreate the conditions that might’ve sparked self-replicating molecules. Are we any nearer to answering one of the biggest questions of all?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress, the online magazine where you can find the best writing on science, technology, and human progress. The latest issue of Works in Progress includes amazing articles on the history of serfdom in Russia, what it’s like to be deliberately infected with the zika virus, and how we can create safe markets for organ donation. You can read all that and much more, all for free, at this link.Show notes* Darwin’s 1871 “warm little pond” letter* JBS Haldane writing about the origin of life in 1929* The famous Miller-Urey experiment from 1953* Nick Lane and Joana Xavier’s 2024 commentary article in Nature, describing the RNA world hypothesis vs. the hydrothermal vents hypothesis, and the open science problems in origin-of-life research* 2015 review on the RNA world hypothesis* 2008 review of the deep-sea vents hypothesis* 2023 PNAS paper with a mathematical model of the co-evolution of replicators and reproducers* 2024 study finding that long-chain fatty acids can be produced in conditions resembling deep-sea hydrothermal ventsCredits and acknowledgementsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We thank Prof. Nick Lane for talking us through the theories of abiogenesis (but he’s not responsible for any mistakes in the show). This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

The discourse has once again turned to a feverish discussion of cognitive decline. Which 2024 US Presidential candidate has it worse? What does that mean for the campaign and for the Presidency in general?In this episode of The Studies Show, your rapidly-ageing hosts look at some of the research on cognitive ageing and cognitive decline. What happens when you give cognitive tests to people of different ages? Do those tests actually matter? They then ask whether there’s a chance that the received wisdom about cognitive ageing is wrong, and that maybe they can hold onto their precious faculties for just a little longer…We’re proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. If you’ve ever been interested in the process of science, the history of technology, and how to use policy to speed up human progress, then WiP is the magazine for you. Their new February 2024 issue is out now.Show notes* Example of a recent article on Joe Biden’s cognitive decline; example of the same for Donald Trump* The above is Figure 1 from this 2019 review on cognitive ageing. The three panels show: levels of fluid reasoning ability at different ages; levels of crystallised knowledge at different ages; the prevalence rate of dementia in different age ranges* Yes, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests exist* 2016 study showing similar patterns of cognitive ageing in Tsimane forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon* 2012 review on cognitive ageing; see Figure 1 for the “Fortune 500 CEO” graph described in the podcast* Study on how IQ-type tasks and more practical tasks change together in old age* Study on cognitive ageing and susceptibility to scams* Tom’s IEEE Spectrum article on how robots learn* Older (2004) article on cognitive ageing; Figure 1 is a useful comparion between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies* Book chapter with a useful discussion on when cognitive ageing begins* 2022 Nature article on “brain charts for the human lifespan”* Systematic review from 2010 on interventions for cognitive decline* 2019 meta-analysis of “real-world” intervention studies* Remarkably biased US politics interview about Biden and Trump and their respective mental capacitiesCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Mistakes were made. By us. In this Mea Culpa episode we discuss several of them, big and small, from multiple previous episodes. If you’ve noticed us make a mistake on The Studies Show, please do get in touch on thestudiesshowpod@substack.com, and we’ll include it in a future Mea Culpa!Show notes* Eiko Fried’s research on the definition of depression (we’ll do a whole episode on this!)* The new BMJ meta-analysis on exercise and depression that came out literally one day after we discussed that topic on the show* Mark Pack’s book on the uses and abuses of opinion pollingCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Remember when the airwaves were full of people questioning the idea of man-made climate change? You don’t hear much from them any more - in large part becuase the evidence that our CO2 emissions are altering the climate has become so overwhelming.After a recap on how we know that carbon warms the climate, Tom and Stuart use this episode of The Studies Show to discuss climate predictions—er, I mean, projections—and how accurate they’ve been. They ask whether the media always gets it right when discussing climate (spoiler: no), and whether we should be optimistic or panicked about what’s happening to the environment.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. Ever wondered what people mean when they talk about “progress studies”? Works in Progress is what they mean. It’s a magazine bursting with fascinating articles on how science and technology have improved our lives - and how they could be even better in future. There’s a whole new February 2024 issue out now - read it at this link.Show notes* 2023: the hottest year on record, with surprising and anomalous melting of ice in Antarctica* NASA on how the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the Earth’s temperature* Carbon Brief explains how scientists estimate climate sensitivity, and discusses the complexities of the latest climate models* The most recent IPCC report, from March 2023* The IEA’s forecast of solar power, with the incredible and very optimistic graph mentioned in the episode:* Tom’s unfortunately-titled Unherd article on the unlikely but much-discussed “RCP 8.5” scenario* Zeke Hausfather’s study on matching up the projections of climate models with what actually happened years and decades later* Response from the sceptics (they still exist!)* Website offering responses to all the most common claims by climate change sceptics (e.g. “the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998”; “CO2 is plant food”)* Toby Ord on how, whereas climate change could be extremely bad, it’s tricky to argue that it’s a truly “existential” riskCredits and acknowledgementsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Karsten Haustein for talking to us for this episode (any errors are our own). This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comHans Eysenck was one of the biggest names in psychology. Was he also a scientific fraudster? Long after his death, allegations resurfaced about his late-career studies, which either contained some of the most impressive findings in medical history, were a terrible mistake… or were the result of something much more sinister.In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the shocking—and often darkly amusing—tale of Hans Eysenck and his enigmatic collaborator, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. If you’ve enjoyed the recent episodes on personality, on psychotherapy, and on scientific fraud, how about a story that combines them all into one totally disastrous indictment of the way we do science?To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options. If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you! Hope you enjoy the episode.

Okay, whether exercise is good isn’t really in question. But there are so many pseudoscientific myths surrounding sports and exercise that it’s always worth looking more closely at some of the claims.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into two widely-believed claims about exercise. First, does stretching your muscles before exercising actually help you in any way? Second, does exercise help alleviate the symptoms of depression? And then, they ask a bonus question inspired by the quality of the evidence on the previous two: why is so much of sports science so crap?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress, the brilliant magazine of ideas about human progress. If you’re at all interested in science and technology, and in reading detailed, well-researched, beautifully-illustrated articles about some surprising and fascinating scientific topics, then Works in Progress is the magazine for you. What’s more, it’s all free. Take a look at their website at this link.Show notes* Old (and bad) 1983 study on stretching and muscle injury* Review questioning the theoretical basis of the supposed benefit of stretching* 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for (among other things) stretching* 2005 review of the same, with very similar results* 2011 Cochrane Review of stretching to prevent delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS)* The strange fad of “kinesio tape”, used by many top athletes (for no actual demonstrable benefit)* The TREAD study on physical activity for depression* Tom on the very angry Guardian article attacking the TREAD study* 2013 Cochrane Review on exercise for depression - a very small effect* 2021 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of exercise for depression symptoms (in people without clinical depression)* Survey on the replication crisis in sports & exercise science* Attempt to replicate four sports & exercise science studies* The Sports Science Replication Center, who ran the above replication attemptCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

What treatment works best for people with depression? Is it psychodynamic psychotherapy, in the Freudian tradition, with its emphasis on hidden, unconscious desires? Or is it Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, based on more contemporary (and less, y’know, made up) ways of thinking about psychology? How do you even do a good study on something as complicated as psychological therapy, anyway?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom (ego) and Stuart (superego) talk about two recent reviews that summarise all the evidence on which kind of therapy works best - and find some results that surprise them both.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine - a journal of new and exciting ideas about how to make the world better. Recent issues have covered topics as varied as geothermal power, architecture, the scientific literature, vaccines, and cocktails - explaining how we’ve made progress with them in the past, and how we might improve them even more in future. Find all their articles for free at this link.Show notes* Paper on the importance of the control group in psychotherapy RCTs* The pros and cons of “treatment as usual” as a control group* The 2023 meta-analysis on psychodynamic psychotherapy* The 2023 meta-analysis on cognitive behavioural therapy* An argument as to why CBT is the “gold standard” of psychotherapy* Frederick Crews’s very very negative book on Freud* The online tool we used to put the effect sizes in terms of “% of the treatment group doing better than the control group”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Everyone seems to have decided that it’s the phones. That is, they’ve decided that heavy smartphone and social-media use is to blame for the current wave of mental illness, despair, and depression that’s affecting young people - teenage girls in particular.Except… we need to ask how strong the evidence is. What do the studies actually show about what’s causing the mental health crisis? And, wait - is there actually a mental health crisis to begin with? In this extra-long episode of The Studies Show (it’s a big topic after all), Tom and Stuart attempt to find out.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Do you like reading about science and technology? Do you like learning about the drivers of human progress? Then this is the magazine for you. You can find all their beautifully written and illustrated articles for free on their main website, along with some excellent shorter pieces on their Substack.Show Notes* UK MP calls for a ban on social media “and perhaps even smartphones” for under-16s; Prime Minister is considering it* Jonathan Haidt’s upcoming book The Anxious Generation* His November 2023 interview with The Spectator on the “rewiring of childhood”* His big Google Doc of all the relevant studies in this area* Jean Twenge’s famous Atlantic article, “Have smartphones destroyed a generation?”* Her book iGen* One of Twenge’s studies, which the book is based on: n = 500,000 analysis of depression traits and “new media screen time”* Amy Orben’s critique* Flurry of articles by well-respected writers in 2023 expressing some degree of confidence that “it’s the phones”: John Burn-Murdoch; Noah Smith; Matt Yglesias (though he’s more interested in other reasons)* Haidt’s 2023 article arguing we can now say it’s a cause, not just a correlation - and “a major cause” at that* Evidence that the US suicide rate is increasing* Evidence that the suicide rate in other countries is not increasing: Norway, Sweden, Denmark; the UK - see below for the heatmap of age-group vs. year and suicide rate for the UK:* 2023 NBER paper cautioning that some of the rise in the US suicide rate might be due to measurement differences* Chris Ferguson et al.’s 2021 meta-analysis that concludes there’s a lack of evidence to suggest that screen time affects mental health* Przybylski & Vuorre’s 2023 paper - across 168 countries, internet connectivity is correlated with better wellbeing* Orben & Przybylski’s 2019 “specfication curve” paper (the “potatoes” one) * Twenge & Haidt’s own specification curve paper suggesting social media use is a stronger predictor of poor wellbeing than is hard drug use* Stuart’s article for the i going into detail on some of the causal studies of phones/social media and mental health* Dean Eckles criticising the “Facebook arrives at universities” studyCredits & AcknowledgementsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Chris Ferguson and Andy Przybylski for talking to us about their research. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comEither there are massive differences between the brains of men and women, or there aren’t any notable differences at all - and people who think differences exist are “neurosexists”. It’s easy to find well-qualified scientists making each of these arguments. They can’t all be right. What’s going on? What do the biggest and best MRI studies of brain sex differences tell us? Do we know what causes them, or how they might affect our psychology? And what does “sexual dimorphism” even mean, anyway? In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try to sort through some of the diametrically-opposed scientific claims.To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options. If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you!

Why do some people love parties and others prefer to stay at home with a book? Why do some people worry endlessly about all the bad things that might happen, while others breeze through life with supreme confidence? Why is Stuart such a nice guy and Tom far less so?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss personality and the personality tests that are supposed to measure it. They discuss whether it might be the Big Five or the Big Six, what measuring personality is good for, and whether “Grit” is even a thing. Not only that, but for the many, many people who are desperate to know, they both reveal their own personality test results.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. We absolutely love reading its beautifully-written, well-researched essays on science, technology, and human progress, and if you’re a listener to this podcast, we’re pretty sure you will, too. Take a look at the whole collection of articles—all available for free—right here.Show Notes* Free site to calculate your Big Five personality profile* Free site to calculate your Big Six (HEXACO) personality profile* Tom’s Big Five personality profile:* Stuart’s Big Five personality profile:* Is it the Big Five or the Big Six? An example of a paper that supports the latter option* Razib Khan’s podcast interview with personality psychologist Brent Roberts* Example of a study on personality and job performance* Paper by Christopher Soto testing the replicability of personality’s associations with life outcomes* Paper showing how “Grit” is really just a re-description of “Conscientiousness”* Severe critique of the Big Five by “a literal banana” (also read the comments!)* Story of the Hans Eysenck personality-and-health fraud (also see this meta-analysis of personality and health)* Meta-analysis of how personality factors change over time* Meta-analysis of interventions that can change personality factorsCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe