= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on What are you working on? April 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
The "ten times" is from the referenced NYT article. It could do with tracking to the source, yes.
edit: This appears to be the original paper, and it's paywalled. But I'll keep looking for a copy.
If you got this from a popularization you may have run into a miscommunication about odds ratios versus relative rates? This is one of those known problems that will be around for a long time because its a subtle point and being wrong on the subtle point helps people score "OMG that's amazing!" points that are rhetorically effective (and get higher click-through when put in a headline) but which are not very accurate.
I have good library access. Send me a PM with your email and I'll email you the PDF if you want to check the original source for precise numbers :-)
Reading that paper, I feel like a dog being shown a card trick ... but gjm hypothesises a reporter being told "almost 10% more" (upper bound of likely selection coefficient ~0.97 edit: ~0.097) and hearing "almost ten times more". This is alarmingly plausible.
Correction: 0.097, not 0.97.