In this episode, the hosts debate the potential of AI to wipe out humanity. They discuss concerns about narrow AI and artificial general intelligence, the capabilities of language models, risks and solutions with advanced AI, skepticism towards AI, and the concerns of killer robots and malicious AI.

The podcast explores cash transfers as a means to improve people's lives. It discusses the evidence supporting cash transfers, concerns about misuse of funds, and the lack of evidence on long-term effects. The hosts also touch on subgroup analysis, pre-registration, technical language in neuroscience research, AI consciousness, and a Canadian study on homelessness inspired by cash transfers in developing countries.

Exploring the placebo effect and its controversies, including its potential for both positive clinical effects and statistical bias. Discussing the concept of pharmacological memory and its relationship to placebos. Delving into pain perception and the role of expectation management. Highlighting the influence of demand characteristics and the importance of double-blind studies. Exploring how expectations affect pain management and the need for further research.

On The Studies Show, we’re all about trying to get it right. But sometimes we get it wrong. Every so often, we’ll do a feedback/corrections/clarifications episode where we go back and try to correct any errors in the last few episodes, and reply to your more general feedback. This is the first one of those, covering Episodes 1-8. Our thanks go to everyone who pointed out our mistakes. Please keep the feedback coming!Show notes* Retatrutide phase 2 trial; semaglutide vs. tirzepatide cost-effectiveness study* The IARC’s useful, detailed report on (e.g.) whether being a firefighter is a cancer risk; the FDA disagrees with the IARC on whether aspartame should be labelled as a “possible” cause of cancer* The newest published trial of psilocybin for depression* Stuart’s more recent article on ultra-processed foods, with discussion of mechanisms; Chris Snowdon’s two part review of Chris van Tulleken’s book; interview with Herman Pontzer on his book BurnCreditsThe 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

In any given school, you’re never more than 6ft away from a poster about “growth mindset”. It’s the massively-popular idea that if you believe that people can change, you’ll put more effort into a task (like studying) and end up doing better at it. On the other hand, if you have a “fixed mindset” and think talent is innate and unchangeable, you won’t put in the effort and you’ll fail to reach your potential.In this episode, Tom and Stuart talk about how the claims about the power of growth mindset have changed over the years, and explain the convoluted back-and-forth story of recent studies and reviews of the evidence. Do growth mindset interventions help kids get better grades? Is growth mindset even a thing? Take a listen to find out.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, an online magazine full to the brim with the best writing on science, technology, and human progress. Read any of the essays in Works in Progress magazine and you’re guaranteed to come away with a new idea or a new understanding of how things work - we can’t recommend it highly enough.Remember that you can subscribe to The Studies Show and get an email every time there’s a new episode - just enter your email address in the box below. We’d also love it if you’d consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting the show - you can also do that below, and you’ll get access to the comments, ask-me-anything opportunities, and (soon) subscriber-only episodes:Show Notes* Tom’s 2017 article on growth mindset on BuzzFeed news* Stuart’s 2022 Substack article “How Growth Mindset Shrank” (including discussion of the various Middle East Peace Process studies)* The 2018 meta-analysis* The 2019 large-scale study of growth mindset in the classroom* Useful online tool to calculate and visualise effect sizes * “Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem?” - Tom’s 2019 Nature News article* The first 2023 meta-analysis (the more growth mindset-sceptical one)* The second 2023 meta-analysis (the more growth mindset-supporting one)* Critique of the first 2023 meta-analysis* Devastating response to the critique (and Brooke Macnamara’s thread on the same)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

If you were anywhere near social media at the start of August, you’ll have seen endless claims of a massive, world-changing breakthrough in physics: the LK-99 room-temperature superconductor.In this episode, Tom and Stuart—neither of them anything approaching a physicist, so caveat emptor—discuss what a superconductor is, why it would be exciting (or not) for it to work at room temperature, and ask why people online got so excited over claims that one had been discovered… when it actually hadn’t. The Studies Show is sponsored by the i, the UK’s best daily newspaper. You can find the latest deals—including a 50% off deal for digital subscriptions—at this link. Thanks to the i for their support!If you’re enjoying The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like ask-me-anything chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe by typing your email address below:Show Notes* Video of the Meissner effect - the eerie levitation of superconducting materials* The initial LK-99 preprint on arXiv* Stuart’s article from the day LK-99 went viral* Statistical model that many thought proved LK-99 really was a room-temperature superconductor* Article in Nature News explaining why the LK-99 material might’ve seemed to have superconducting properties* Story on the retractions of work by another room-temperature superconductor researcher* Actually-exciting superconductor advance 1 (and replication); actually-exciting superconductor advance 2 (and replication)* Article on the Fleischmann & Pons “cold fusion” debacle* Story of the “faster-than-light neutrino” error* Plastic Fantastic, the book about the fraudulent semiconductor studies in the early 2000s* Article on “quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis” and the Majorana particleCreditsThe 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 podcast explores the impact of ultra-processed foods on obesity, discussing their definition, categorization, and health implications. It highlights the limitations of observational studies, presents the results of a study on weight gain, and delves into the brain's response to the modern food environment. The hosts share their views on ultra-processed foods and promote the podcast's subscription options.

Seemingly-reliable sources give you diametrically-opposed views on vaping. Are e-cigarettes “95% less harmful” than cigarettes, or aren’t they? Are vapes gateway drugs that lead people to smoke, or are they a great way to give up smoking? Is it both? Neither?In Episode 5 of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the research on the health effects of vaping and try to answer these questions - as well as explaining the origin of the fabled “popcorn lung”.The Studies Show is brought to you by the i, the UK’s best daily newspaper. For the next 7 days only, you can take advantage of the i’s current deal: 50% off a full digital subscription + the physical weekend paper. Thanks to the i for their support!If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like ask-me-anything chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The WHO praises India for banning vapes* Article on The Conversation arguing the “vaping is 95% less harmful than cigarettes” claim has been debunked* Long UK Government/King’s College London report defending the “95% less harmful” claim (2022)* Earlier (2018) Public Health England report with similar conclusions* New Nicotine Alliance (unaffiliated anti-smoking charity) report with useful references on addictiveness, risk, etc.* Popcorn lung: Science-Based Medicine piece illustrated with lungs full of popcorn; Johns Hopkins piece saying popcorn lung is a concern; American Lung Association piece agreeing; Cancer Research UK piece saying no cases ever linked to vaping* Study retracted for erroneously comparing different age groups; study retracted for time-travelling heart-attacks* UK cigarette smoking rate dropping in adults; dropping in children* Tom’s article on this from 2017* 2017 study showing vaping and cigarette smoking correlate in teenagers* 2022 Cochrane review on vaping and smoking cessation* Study of vaping in pregnant mice; press release; article in The Sun with scary headline* Study on vaping vs. nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnant women* People’s beliefs about vaping: increasing belief that it’s as dangerous as smoking in adults; in adults again; in childrenCreditsThe 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

You’ve surely seen the hyped news stories. Psychedelic drugs are no longer just for hippies and attendees at raves: they’re the new frontier of mental health treatment, revolutionising how we think about conditions like depression and PTSD and showing major promise in clinical trials.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into psychedelics and mental illness. They start by talking about why scientists think psychedelics might be relevant here - and it’s to do with the theory of the “Bayesian Brain”. Then they get into the studies, and point to some serious hurdles on the way to getting good evidence on this question.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* Announcement that Australia has legalised psychedelics for some kinds of psychotherapy* A long, highly technical exposition of the Bayesian Brain theory with reference to psychedelics* Criticism of the Bayesian Brain theory more generally* Stuart’s Substack post on psychedelics* The Phase II randomised trial of psilocybin versus escitalopram* The Phase III randomised trial of MDMA for PTSD* The New York Magazine podcast series raising some safety concerns about psychedelic therapy* Eiko Fried’s Twitter thread on a very bad study of psychedelics and mental illnessCreditsThe 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

The WHO’s cancer-research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has decided that the commonly-used sweetener aspartame “possibly causes cancer”. It’s been added to a long list of chemicals, activities, and occupations that are in some way carcinogenic. Apparently.But the list is really stupid. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask about the point of this list, when after all, the dose makes the poison. Is working a night shift as much of a cancer risk as using aloe vera skin cream? Does it even make sense to ask that question?The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The IARC list of carcinogens* The Dynomight explainer on aspartame, its chemical properties, and its safety* The French study of sweeteners and cancer risk* Context on the level of risk* Long review article on the effects of aspartame* Critique of two of the Rammazini Institute’s aspartame studies* Tom’s Twitter thread on aspartame* Stuart’s article on aspartame* Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz’s article on aspartame and the IARCCreditsThe 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