follow_the_word
New member
I know Emily Oster is controversial here. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her takes nor do I think (unfortunately) she’s necessarily great at assessing the state of the field on every topic she writes on, and I don’t always agree with how she presents the data she does share.
However - I find her framework for decision making and way of presenting it incredibly accessible and useful. I think she’s an engaging writer and she often adds nuance to a discussion.
I liked her latest newsletter, about (effectively) harm reduction. Many times, major medical bodies (or evidence based spaces) focus on “best” without necessarily a nuanced discussion of what tradeoffs you might make if best is not an option for you. Instead it’s best or (as she frames it) “outer darkness” for all sorts of parenting decisions — ABC sleep, forward facing early, child nutrition, etc etc.
It’s helpful for me to think about how best scientifically does not necessarily mean best for me and then assess how much additional risk I’m comfortable taking on. Thought this community might enjoy the read!
However - I find her framework for decision making and way of presenting it incredibly accessible and useful. I think she’s an engaging writer and she often adds nuance to a discussion.
I liked her latest newsletter, about (effectively) harm reduction. Many times, major medical bodies (or evidence based spaces) focus on “best” without necessarily a nuanced discussion of what tradeoffs you might make if best is not an option for you. Instead it’s best or (as she frames it) “outer darkness” for all sorts of parenting decisions — ABC sleep, forward facing early, child nutrition, etc etc.
It’s helpful for me to think about how best scientifically does not necessarily mean best for me and then assess how much additional risk I’m comfortable taking on. Thought this community might enjoy the read!