The Studies Show

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comRather unexpectedly, the idea of separate sports for males and females has become massively controversial—a major flashpoint in the culture wars, and even in the recent US election.So what does the evidence say? Is it fair if trans women (who are biologically male) compete with females in sports like swimming, or even boxing? How much sporting performance does a lifetime of testosterone grant you? In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and (confirmed sport-hater) Stuart look at the evidence on male vs. female sport performance—and discuss whether the argument is really more about ethics and politics than scientific evidence.

Patrick Bateman. Hannibal Lecter. Ted Bundy. The guy who used to live downstairs from me. Psychopaths, every one. Except defining psychopathy, let alone measuring it, turns out to be surprisingly controversial among psychologists and forensic scientists.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the latest attempts to define and model psychopathy, the evidence on the questionnaires used to measure it, and whether The Sopranos was right in saying that therapy only makes psychopaths worse.Our sponsor for the next month is GiveWell. They’re the org that helps you work out the most effective, life-saving ways to donate to charity. The great news is that, if you haven’t donated with GiveWell before, they’ve offered to match your charitable donations up to $100. That is, if you donate $100 to an effective charity, it’ll instantly be doubled. What are you waiting for? All you have to do is go to GiveWell.org, click “Donate”, and when you’re at the checkout choose PODCAST and enter THE STUDIES SHOW.Show notes* The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy strongly criticise Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test* 2021 Nature Reviews Disease Primers article on psychopathy* Critical discussion of whether the psychopath label should be applied to children* Christopher Patrick’s review of psychopathy research and discussion of his “triarchic” model of psychopathy* 2020 review-of-reviews on whether psychopathy checklist scores predict violence, therapy outcomes, or remorse* The 2020 letter from “concerned experts” about PCL-R scores and institutional violence* Review on psychopathy scores and “dangerousness” from 2022* The controversial 1992 study on iatrogenic effects on psychopaths in therapy* “Are psychopathy assessments ethical?” 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

Among patients hospitalized for COVID, smokers had better outcomes. Among people with cardiovascular disease, those with obesity live longer. Among NBA basketballers, taller players don’t do any better. These are all facts. But the interpretation you might immediately draw is completely wrong.It turns out that these findings (and many more) might be due to the weird and under-discussed phenomenon of “collider bias”. Everyone who’s interested in scientific methods knows what a confounder is—but do they know what a collider is? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart attempt to explain.We’re delighted to announce our sponsor for the next month: GiveWell. They’re the organisation who use rigorous evidence to point you towards the highest-impact charities. Want to make sure your donation goes as far as possible, maximising the lives that you’ll save and improve? GiveWell.org is the place to go. And here’s a fantastic opportunity: if you’re a new donor, GiveWell will match up to $100 of your charitable donation if you go to GiveWell.org, then choose “PODCAST” and enter “The Studies Show” at checkout.Show notes* French study on COVID and smoking rates* French doctors handing out nicotine patches during the pandemic* Review of 13 studies in China showing lower smoking rates in those hospitalised for COVID* Among heart attack sufferers, smokers have better subsequent health* Obesity linked to improved survival among patients with a wide range of diseases* Within the NBA, tall basketball players do no better than short ones* Standardized testing doesn’t predict how well graduate physics students do* The same but for biology* The same but for STEM in general* Do neurotic people actually live longer, once you correct for self-rated health?* Julia Rohrer’s blog article on collider bias, using the conscientiousness/IQ relation* The “collider scope” paper - one of the best explanations of the phenomenon* Article on “the obsesity paradox”* Follow-up arguing that it might not be a paradox at allCreditsThe 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

Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just a big crank? Well, yes. But is he nevertheless correct in his specific claims about the harms of water fluoridation? It’s long been argued that it’s no longer necessary, and that it might have the scary adverse effect of lowering children’s IQs. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence.While they’re at it, Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s evidence for several other dentistry-related claims. Regular check-ups; flossing; fillings; fluoride toothpaste—is your dentist just b**********g you about any or all of these?[This podcast was recorded just before Donald Trump selected RFK Jr. as his candidate for US Health Secretary, but that makes the episode even more relevant].The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re an optimist who enjoys reading about how things have gotten better in the past, and how we might make them better in the future—then it’s the magazine for you. Find it at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* RFK Jr.’s tweet about how the new Trump administration will remove fluoride from the US water supply* US National Research Council’s 2006 report on fluoridation* 2023 meta-analysis on water fluoridation and IQ* Letter co-authored by Stuart, criticising a bad study on fluoride and IQ in pregnant women and their babies* The original study* Review of fluoridation and cancer risk* 2000 UK NHS review of fluoridation and cancer risk* 2022 UK Government report on the link of water fluoridation to various different medical conditions* 2024 Cochrane Review on fluoridation and preventing tooth decay* Review of guidelines from the Journal of the American Dental Association* 2020 randomised controlled trial on fillings in children’s teeth* The Cochrane Library on the evidence for specific intervals between dental appointments (e.g. 6 months)* The American Dental Association guidelines on flossing, and the NHS ones* 2019 Cochrane review of RCTs of flossing* The ADA and NHS guidelines on brushing with fluoride toothpaste* 2019 Cochrane review on brushing and fluoride* Claims about cardiac health being related to dental health* Study of 1m people in Korea on cardiac health and tooth loss* 2020 meta-analysis of cardiac and dental health* The study included in the meta-analysis by Chen, Chen, Lin, and Chen* Claims about dental health and cancer* 2020 review of the literature* 2024 Ars Technica story on dentists over-selling their services* 2019 Atlantic piece: “Is Dentistry a Science?”* 2013 piece in the Washington State Dental News magazine on “creative diagnosis”* Articles in the British Dental Journal and JAMA Internal Medicine both arguing that evidence-based medicine has left dentistry behindCredits 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