Mistakes page
Article
Mistakes page is a recurring publication in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between June 05, 2022 and June 01, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “I updated the post and my Mistakes page”; “I regret the error and have added it to my Mistakes page”. It most often appears alongside 2006 IAU vote, 9/11, Abacha.
Metadata
- Category: Publications
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: June 05, 2022
- Last seen: June 01, 2023
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- 2006 IAU vote (1 shared issues)
-
- 11 (1 shared issues)
-
- Abacha (1 shared issues)
-
- Africa (1 shared issues)
-
- AISafetyMemes (1 shared issues)
-
- Andy Clark (1 shared issues)
-
- Anthropic (1 shared issues)
-
- Arabia (1 shared issues)
-
- Ariadne (1 shared issues)
-
- Arjuna (1 shared issues)
-
- Astralcodexten Com (1 shared issues)
-
- Augustus Caesar (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
2: In my ivermectin post, about a third of the way down, are two analyses of whether a raw meta-analysis makes it look like ivermectin works. I concluded that they showed marginal effect, but that this was probably due to other factors (eg antiparasitic properties). A reader points out that it was wrong to do this by t-test, and I should have used a DerSimonian-Laird test because it’s a meta-analysis, which would have shown a clear (not marginal) effect, so I updated the post and my Mistakes page. More recently, another reader has commented that a DerSimonian-Laird test is also inappropriate because the studies aren’t homogenous, and now I’m not sure which test is appropriate or what result it would give - but it definitely wasn’t the one I originally tried. I don’t think this significantly alters the overall conclusion of the post, which was that the apparent effect (whether marginal or clear) was better explained by other things.
I’ve provisionally corrected it and added an entry to my Mistakes page, and plan to read Shellenberger’s book to get a better sense of exactly what he does and doesn’t support. Sorry for the error.
19: Also, Ozy Contra Scott On Fake Bisexuality. I cited a study here finding that most men’s genital arousal tracked their stated sexual orientation (ie straight men were aroused by women, gay men were aroused by men, bi men were aroused by either), but women’s genital arousal seemed to follow a bisexual pattern regardless of what orientation they thought they were - and concluded that although men’s orientation seemed hard-coded, women’s orientation must be more psychological. Ozy cites a followup study showing that women (though not men) also show genital arousal in response to chimps having sex, suggesting women’s genital arousal doesn’t track actual attraction and is just some sort of mechanical process triggered by sexual stimuli. I regret the error and have added it to my Mistakes page.