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?
A clinical psychologist in a EU country looked at Lorien Psychology and said that the writing looked like typical American biomedical psychiatry with some self-promotion. In the UK and EU you can find psychiatrists who say things like “psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders,” I think Scott Alexander blogged about Thomas Szasz at some point https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190708131152.htm
I am not comfortable exploring the question “did he violate professional ethics?” further because that seems like an unhealthy parasocial relationship like cyberstalking or swatting. I never met him or anyone who met him. More shoeleather reporting on these communities would help!