Live data from Hacker News

Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

doyourownresearch.substack.com

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#11

The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#12
post #5

The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…

Quoted post unavailable.

There is no evidence it is effective. The papers claiming to show its effectiveness are riddled with errors and have been retracted.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#13
post #6

I guess 'rationalism', as a name, calls a certain kind of person out of the ether: 1. They like rationality, and feel it's opposed by 'irrationality'. 2. They want to be part of some 'rational group'. 3. They're ignorant enough not to know the name is already taken. 4. They're ignorant enough not to know that the name means pretty much the opposite of what they believe. (A real rationalist, for instance, probably wou…

Words and meanings change over time and depending on the context. Strangely you claim it's ignorance but then give supporting reasons why someone might label this "rationalism".

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#14
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

There is no evidence it is effective. The papers claiming to show its effectiveness are riddled with errors and have been retracted.

No post body was provided.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#15

The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…

It's a fascinating community, in some regards. Scott is among the few people where I consciously notice that they are highly intelligent. He's also a decent writer and, despite my lingering fear, has not gone down the Glenn-Greenwald-pipeline into obnoxious contrarianism.

...and then there is the rest of the community. They cargo-cult all the phrases and hobbies and opinions, but it's like when you wore that first suit: it wasn't yours, you didn't have the shoulders, and everyone but you knew it looked ridiculous. Seriously: even the other well-known people from that community (whose names I've since forgotten) are so obviously cosplaying the intellectualism. Even in the natural science I studied, I would not be able to identify the smart and the not-so-smart papers or professors with such ease.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#16

The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…

> The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness

I’m about to start calling them what they are: Sophists.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#17
post #8
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I didn't read this and suddenly think "oh my god- the whole establishment is wrong! How thankful I am that some rational person has done the hard math for me to explain why ivermectin is a magic cure". The current medical opinion is that ivermectin only appears to have an effect when it's actually treating an underlying condition (parasitic infection). I don't see that changing any time soon; certainly nobody has sho…

As far as I know Scott was the first person to suggest the "worm theory" (parasites) and no study has shown that to be the case. Unless some new body of Ivermectin research has come out that I'm unaware of, then you're misrepresenting current medical opinion by a long shot.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#18

The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…

Quoted post unavailable.

People should consider the possibility that this is parody.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#20
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

There is no evidence it is effective. The papers claiming to show its effectiveness are riddled with errors and have been retracted.

It is effective if you have worms. It's also effective if you have worms and covid, because the worms make the covid worse.
Post reply on HN