Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his 2021 ivermectin analysis, acknowledging some errors but maintaining his conclusion that ivermectin likely doesn't work for COVID-19. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Alexandros Marinos' critique of his 2021 post on ivermectin studies, addressing points about individual studies, meta-analysis methods, publication bias, and new evidence since 2021. He acknowledges some mistakes in his original analysis but maintains his overall conclusion that ivermectin is likely ineffective for COVID-19. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how public predictions are judged over time, using examples like Nostradamus and Fukuyama to illustrate common pitfalls and offer advice on making predictions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the phenomenon of how people's predictions are judged over time, using Nostradamus and Francis Fukuyama as contrasting examples. He discusses how Nostradamus's vague prophecies are often interpreted as accurate in hindsight, while Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis is frequently declared wrong whenever significant events occur. The post then analyzes other public figures' predictions and their reception, before offering advice on how to make predictions that won't damage one's credibility or cause personal misery. Scott concludes by acknowledging that he wants to make more predictions himself, while warning aspiring thought leaders about the challenges of public prediction-making. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes ivermectin studies for COVID-19, finding most positive results likely due to methodological flaws, fraud, or confounding by parasitic infections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides an in-depth analysis of ivermectin studies for COVID-19 treatment, examining methodological issues, potential fraud, and confounding factors. He concludes that ivermectin likely doesn't significantly reduce COVID mortality except potentially in areas with high parasitic worm infections. The post explores broader issues around scientific credibility, fraud detection, and public trust in science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander maintains a list of significant mistakes in his blog posts, providing corrections and updates in reverse chronological order. Longer summary

Scott Alexander maintains a list of significant mistakes he has made in his blog posts, providing corrections and updates. He acknowledges errors in data interpretation, misunderstandings of studies, incorrect predictions, and instances where he changed his mind based on new evidence or reader feedback. The list is presented in reverse chronological order and covers a wide range of topics including medicine, economics, psychology, and social issues. Shorter summary