This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin. You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. We’ve discussed how Scott stealth-iterated on the hypothesis which was the focus of his ivermectin article. We’ve
I think you've done a good job dotting i's and crossing t's; but, at a more simplistic and intuitive level, the thing that stands out for me is the caption, "A defiant Flavio Cadegiani. Imagine a guy who looks like this telling you to take ultra-high-dose antiandrogens."
It's so shockingly juvenile. And a microcosm for the point you make that Scott used "rhetorical skill serving to obscure glaring flaws in an underlying logical structure that people needed to be entertained away from spotting".
What shocks me most is how I just skimmed over that caption (and many other points you've raised) the first time I read it and how I was duped. Very humbling.
A few things of note. First, I'm not sure whether it's from an update but embedded tweets don't appear to work now. In a few Substacks I peruse it doesn't seem to work when I click on the link.
I haven't been keeping up but I'm still confused as to Scott's argument. If the argument suggests that the clearance of worms are why these people did better what reference is he using to make that assertion? As you've pointed out with your maps much of the WEIRD world has been "dewormed" so to speak, so are we to compare the wormed 3rd world to the dewormed WEIRD world? Because from what I can recall many of these countries did better than the US.
Sure, other variables can be taken into account for that but that's not Scott's argument from what I gather. I suppose its my lack of fully examining Scott's point that is leaving me a bit befuddled.
It is weird how this has taken on a life of its own and has been reiterated multiple times. I could see it as being one of many hypotheses which would need further elucidating but for the most part it appears that it was just taken up as being factual. I think it's an example of the dynamics that go on between the reader and the writer and that sort of parasocial dynamic that is at play.
This has been a fascinating series. Well done.
I think you've done a good job dotting i's and crossing t's; but, at a more simplistic and intuitive level, the thing that stands out for me is the caption, "A defiant Flavio Cadegiani. Imagine a guy who looks like this telling you to take ultra-high-dose antiandrogens."
It's so shockingly juvenile. And a microcosm for the point you make that Scott used "rhetorical skill serving to obscure glaring flaws in an underlying logical structure that people needed to be entertained away from spotting".
What shocks me most is how I just skimmed over that caption (and many other points you've raised) the first time I read it and how I was duped. Very humbling.
To be fair, glib arguments that don't hold water are The Economist's bread and butter.
A few things of note. First, I'm not sure whether it's from an update but embedded tweets don't appear to work now. In a few Substacks I peruse it doesn't seem to work when I click on the link.
I haven't been keeping up but I'm still confused as to Scott's argument. If the argument suggests that the clearance of worms are why these people did better what reference is he using to make that assertion? As you've pointed out with your maps much of the WEIRD world has been "dewormed" so to speak, so are we to compare the wormed 3rd world to the dewormed WEIRD world? Because from what I can recall many of these countries did better than the US.
Sure, other variables can be taken into account for that but that's not Scott's argument from what I gather. I suppose its my lack of fully examining Scott's point that is leaving me a bit befuddled.
It is weird how this has taken on a life of its own and has been reiterated multiple times. I could see it as being one of many hypotheses which would need further elucidating but for the most part it appears that it was just taken up as being factual. I think it's an example of the dynamics that go on between the reader and the writer and that sort of parasocial dynamic that is at play.
I think you are the embodiment of the word, thorough