5.00 score from hupso.pl for:
slatestarcodex.com



HTML Content


Titleslate star codex

Length: 16, Words: 3
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 9654
Text/HTML 52.46 %
Headings H1 1
H2 10
H3 29
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
slate star codex
H2
ssc survey 2017
watch new health picks
another followup to “economists on education”
ot67: comment core
should buzzfeed publish claims which are explosive if true but not yet proven?
why do test scores plateau?
heuristics work until they don’t
predictions for 2017
trump and the batman effect
ot66: thread lang syne (+ irvine meetup)
H3
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
blogroll
embalmed ones
fabulous ones
innumerable ones
mermaids
stray dogs
suckling pigs
those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
those that are included in this classification
those that are trained
those that at a distance resemble flies
those that belong to the emperor
those that have just broken the flower vase
those that tremble as though they are mad
various others
archives
meta
subscribe via email
recent posts
H4
H5
H6
strong
b
i
em
Bolds strong 0
b 0
i 0
em 0
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 21
Pliki CSS 7
Pliki javascript 14
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 322
Linki wewnętrzne 5
Linki zewnętrzne 317
Linki bez atrybutu Title 265
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

open thread /tag/open/?latest
jobs@qualia.com mailto:jobs@qualia.com
part of amazon affiliate program /amazon

Linki zewnętrzne

home http://slatestarcodex.com/
about http://slatestarcodex.com/about/
archives http://slatestarcodex.com/archives/
top posts http://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/
mistakes http://slatestarcodex.com/mistakes/
comments http://slatestarcodex.com/comments/
predictions & bets http://slatestarcodex.com/predictions-bets/
advertise http://slatestarcodex.com/advertise/
amazon http://slatestarcodex.com/amazon/
comments feed http://slatestarcodex.com/comments/feed/
rss feed http://slatestarcodex.com/feed/
slate star codex http://slatestarcodex.com/
ssc survey 2017 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
the 2017 ssc survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1faipqlsfmeufqtca3spv7en4cnhja4jqpfuoe2ezjy_nxlu5u2gquya/viewform
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
meta http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/meta/
survey http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/survey/
127 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/#comments
watch new health picks http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
conservative hardliner http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tom-price-secretary-hhs-policy/509159/
orthopaedic surgeon http://mrkay.co.uk/joke.htm
writes for forbes about how obamacare is bad http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/#3dae55c06e75
jim o’neill https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-07/trump-team-is-said-to-consider-thiel-associate-o-neill-for-fda
a preliminary agreement https://www.seasteading.org/2016/09/french-polynesia-open-seasteading-collaboration/
a director of sens http://www.sens.org/about/leadership/board-of-directors
increasing the organ supply by paying donors https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/07/trump-fda-oneill/
describes himself as https://balajis.com/about/
silicon valley’s ultimate exit https://genius.com/balaji-srinivasan-silicon-valleys-ultimate-exit-annotated
called https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-exec-balaji-srinivasan-trump-fda-job/
the atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ted-cruzs-best-idea-for-overhauling-the-fda/421158/
health affairs http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/02/14/if-a-drug-is-good-enough-for-europeans-its-good-enough-for-us/
marginal revolution http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/09/drug-reciprocity-with-europe-gains-support.html
cracking down on imported canadian pharmaceuticals http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/17/14295932/pharmaceuticals-canada-cheaper-not-dangerous
ssc http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/24/the-problems-with-generic-medications-go-deeper-than-one-company/
more ssc http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/
high school chemistry classes make it just to show they can? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/01/australian-students-recreate-martin-shkreli-price-hike-drug-in-school-lab
just by bringing them up to date with modern fda bureaucracy http://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/study-says-no-good-has-come-from-fda-s-action-on-gout-drug-colchicine
that thing where drug companies can legally bribe other companies not to compete with them http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2015/09/lather-rinse-repeat-senators-take-another-stab-at-passing-the-preserve-access-to-affordable-generics.html
ssc http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/11/26/a-letter-i-will-probably-send-to-the-fda/
more ssc http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/17/statistical-literacy-among-doctors-now-lower-than-chance/
based on safety but not efficacy https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-07/trump-team-is-said-to-consider-thiel-associate-o-neill-for-fda
arguably already happening http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2016/05/18/study-protocol-violations-outcomes-switching-adverse-events-misreporting-a-peek-under-the-hood/
part 3 here http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/#comment-454891
pharmaceutical industry stock index https://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-pharmaceuticals-select-industry-index
surprising contenders emerge for trump’s nih chief http://www.nature.com/news/surprising-contenders-emerge-for-trump-s-nih-chief-1.21295
here http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/#comment-454891
famous for http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
medicine http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/medicine/
politics http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/politics/
613 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/#comments
another followup to “economists on education” http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
i argued http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/
1 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/#comment-448544
2 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/#comment-452460
3 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/addendum-to-economists-on-education/#comment-448951
addendum post http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/addendum-to-economists-on-education/
proposed http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/addendum-to-economists-on-education/#comment-449009
commenter sripada got 40 people to take the survey http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/addendum-to-economists-on-education/#comment-449930
hanne watkins https://twitter.com/goophd
a 50 person mturk survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1faipqlsepyiwlfpqdellssvwokgid058bvpnkokf4jzqzeaotaseg3w/viewanalytics
seems to be http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/who-is-responsible-when-article-gets.html
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
misreporting http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/misreporting/
rationality http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/rationality/
201 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/#comments
ot67: comment core http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
here http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/open/?latest
jongunnarsson https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5lsp40/scoring_my_2016_predictions/
anatoly karlin http://www.unz.com/akarlin/prediction-calibration-results-2016/
anders sandberg http://aleph.se/andart2/future-studies/checking-my-predictions-for-2016/
and e. harding – sorry if i missed anybody. and the eukaryote writes blog offers tips for throwing a new years’ prediction party. https://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/110-predictions-for-december-31-2016/
e. harding https://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/110-predictions-for-december-31-2016/
tips for throwing a new years’ prediction party https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2016/12/31/throw-a-prediction-party/
thing of things https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/
patreon https://www.patreon.com/ozybrennan
quillette http://quillette.com/
has a patreon too https://www.patreon.com/quillette
here https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/quillette-has-a-patreon-site/
jaskologist’s theory of magic http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/08/open-thread-66-5/#comment-451873
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
open http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/open/
872 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/#comments
should buzzfeed publish claims which are explosive if true but not yet proven? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
a mindset revolution sweeping britain’s classrooms may be built on shaky science https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset?utm_term=.talvmkwe0#.dd0z9p23m
my own (mostly pessimistic) article http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-growth-mindset-yet/
help defuse the israel-palestine conflict http://beyondthemap.net/blog/from-middle-school-to-the-middle-east
this meta-analysis of 113 studies http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/inpress_burnetteoboylevaneppspollackfinkel_psychbull.pdf
defying the data http://lesswrong.com/lw/ig/i_defy_the_data/
true! http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422661/top-activist-and-author-climate-change-making-racism-worse
fail to find a sunk cost effect http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12297/abstract?campaign=woletoc
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
psychology http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/psychology/
62 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/#comments
why do test scores plateau? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/13/why-do-test-scores-plateau/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/13/why-do-test-scores-plateau/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
one http://phdres.caregate.net/curriculum/pdf-files/annals2k2-505.pdf
another http://cpmcpsychiatry.com/about/prite-scores/
the last https://forums.studentdoctor.net/attachments/absite-national-norms-2016-pdf.212870/
senioritis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/senioritis
the forgetting curve https://www.gwern.net/spaced%20repetition
this comic http://xkcd.com/699/
experimented with https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/13/why-do-test-scores-plateau/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/13/why-do-test-scores-plateau/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
education http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/education/
statistics http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/statistics/
111 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/13/why-do-test-scores-plateau/#comments
heuristics work until they don’t http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/11/heuristics-work-until-they-dont/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/11/heuristics-work-until-they-dont/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
“ai winters” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ai_winter
completely made up http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/02/if-its-worth-doing-its-worth-doing-with-made-up-statistics/
the week http://theweek.com/articles/470530/mitt-romneys-disastrous-ground-game-7-other-behindthescenes-revelations
this explanation of hillary’s loss http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
moneyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/moneyball
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/11/heuristics-work-until-they-dont/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/11/heuristics-work-until-they-dont/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
rationality http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/rationality/
348 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/11/heuristics-work-until-they-dont/#comments
predictions for 2017 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/06/predictions-for-2017/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/06/predictions-for-2017/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
make predictions http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/25/predictions-for-2016/
score them http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/2016-predictions-calibration-results/
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/06/predictions-for-2017/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/06/predictions-for-2017/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
predictions http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/predictions/
421 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/06/predictions-for-2017/#comments
trump and the batman effect http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
@danscavino https://twitter.com/danscavino
https://t.co/137nuo03gl https://t.co/137nuo03gl
january 3, 2017 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/816324295781740544
november 30, 2016 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/803808454620094465
is owned by a giant defense contractor http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/donald-trump-working-class-indiana
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
politics http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/politics/
812 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/#comments
ot66: thread lang syne (+ irvine meetup) http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/01/ot66-thread-lang-syne/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/01/ot66-thread-lang-syne/
scott alexander http://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
here http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/open/?latest
twitter http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/01/ot66-thread-lang-syne/?share=twitter
facebook http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/01/ot66-thread-lang-syne/?share=facebook
uncategorized http://slatestarcodex.com/category/uncategorized/
open http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/open/
959 comments http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/01/ot66-thread-lang-syne/#comments
older posts http://slatestarcodex.com/page/2/
anoieaeib http://blog.jaibot.com/
common sense atheism http://commonsenseatheism.com/
less wrong http://lesswrong.com
the last psychiatrist http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/
alicornutopia http://alicorn.elcenia.com/board/index.php
unsong http://unsongbook.com
n-category cafe https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/
put a number on it http://putanumonit.com/
random critical analysis https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com
shtetl-optimized http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/
statistical modeling http://andrewgelman.com/
unenumerated http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/
miri https://intelligence.org/blog/
miri http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/
nothing is mere http://nothingismere.com/
the merely real https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/
anonymous mugwump http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk
artir https://artir.wordpress.com/
follow the squirrel http://followthesquirrel.blogspot.com/
marginal revolution http://marginalrevolution.com/
pseudoerasmus https://pseudoerasmus.com/
the money illusion http://www.themoneyillusion.com/
fredrik deboer http://fredrikdeboer.com/blog/
unqualified restaurant reservations http://unqualifiedrestaurants.tumblr.com/
whole health source http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
saturday morning breakfast cereal http://www.smbc-comics.com/
#slatestarcodex http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=slatestarcodex
r/slatestarcodex https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/
80000 hours blog https://80000hours.org/blog/
effective altruism forum http://www.effective-altruism.com/
givewell blog http://blog.givewell.org/
jeff kaufman http://www.jefftk.com/index
luke muehlhauser http://lukemuehlhauser.com/
the unit of caring http://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/
the whole sky https://thewholesky.wordpress.com/
agenty duck http://agentyduck.blogspot.com/
beeminder https://www.beeminder.com/
nate soares http://mindingourway.com/
the future primaeval http://thefutureprimaeval.net/
west hunter https://westhunt.wordpress.com/
xenosystems http://www.xenosystems.net/
armed and dangerous http://esr.ibiblio.org/
bryan caplan http://econlog.econlib.org/authorbcaplan.html
david friedman http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
don't worry about the vase https://thezvi.wordpress.com/
overcoming bias http://www.overcomingbias.com/
popehat http://www.popehat.com/
1 boring old man http://1boringoldman.com/
aceso under glass http://acesounderglass.com/
cognition and evolution http://cognitionandevolution.blogspot.com/
crazy meds http://www.crazymeds.us/
gruntled and hinged http://gruntledandhinged.wordpress.com/
real psychiatry http://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/
shrink rap http://psychiatrist-blog.blogspot.com/
an algorithmic lucidity http://zackmdavis.net/blog/
gene expression http://www.unz.com/gnxp/
information processing http://infoproc.blogspot.com/
melting asphalt http://www.meltingasphalt.com/
meteuphoric https://meteuphoric.wordpress.com/
otium https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/
ribbonfarm http://www.ribbonfarm.com/
the rationalist conspiracy http://rationalconspiracy.com/
the sideways view https://sideways-view.com/
thing of things http://thingofthings.wordpress.com/
weird sun blog https://weird.solar
january 2017 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/
december 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/
november 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/
october 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/10/
september 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/
august 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/
july 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/
june 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/
may 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/
april 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/
march 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/
february 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/
january 2016 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/
december 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/
november 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/
october 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/10/
september 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/
august 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/
july 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/
june 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/
may 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/
april 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/
march 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/
february 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/
january 2015 http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/
december 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/
november 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/
october 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/
september 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/
august 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/
july 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/
june 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/
may 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/
april 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/
march 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/
february 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/
january 2014 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/
december 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/
november 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/11/
october 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/
september 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/09/
august 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/
july 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/
june 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/
may 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/
april 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/
march 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/
february 2013 http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/
full archives http://slatestarcodex.com/archives/
register http://slatestarcodex.com/wp-login.php?action=register
log in http://slatestarcodex.com/wp-login.php
entries rss http://slatestarcodex.com/feed/
comments rss http://slatestarcodex.com/comments/feed/
wordpress.org https://wordpress.org/
ssc survey 2017 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/22/ssc-survey-2017/
watch new health picks http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/18/watch-new-health-picks/
another followup to “economists on education” http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/
ot67: comment core http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/15/ot67-comment-core/
should buzzfeed publish claims which are explosive if true but not yet proven? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/14/should-buzzfeed-publish-information-which-is-explosive-if-true-but-not-completely-verified/
- http://book.80000hours.org/
book http://book.80000hours.org/
- http://effectivealtruism.org/?refer=ssc
effective altruism newsletter http://effectivealtruism.org/?refer=ssc
- https://www.beeminder.com/
here http://blog.beeminder.com/tag/rationality/
- https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/?refer=ssc
giving what we can https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
- http://rationality.org/workshops/upcoming?referer=slatestarcodex
here http://www.rationality.org/studies/2015-longitudinal-study
- http://qualia.com/jobs.html
- http://triplebyte.com/?ref=slatestarcodex
triplebyte http://triplebyte.com/?ref=slatestarcodex
- http://www.mealsquares.com/
- https://www.patreon.com/user?u=926060&ty=h
patreon https://www.patreon.com/user?u=926060&ty=h
http://www.hulozila.com/

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 14
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 13
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 14
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://slatestarcodex.com/wp-content/themes/two_column_pujugama/images/codex.png
http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/image/ucm129445.gif
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/commoncore.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/forgetting.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/timessquare.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/80k_vertise.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/eatowr.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/beeminder_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/eatowr2.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cfar_vertise.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/qualia_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/triplebyte_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/mealsquares_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/patreon_ad.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/image/ucm129445.gif
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/commoncore.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/forgetting.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/timessquare.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/80k_vertise.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/eatowr.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/beeminder_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/eatowr2.jpg
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cfar_vertise.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/qualia_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/triplebyte_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/mealsquares_ad.png
http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/patreon_ad.png

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

home about archives top posts mistakes comments predictions & bets advertise amazon open thread comments feed rss feed slate star codex open threads at the open thread tab every sunday and wednesday ssc survey 2017 posted on january 22, 2017 by scott alexander if you’re reading this and have previously read at least one ssc post, please take the 2017 ssc survey. warning: it’s pretty long. you can talk about it in the comments, but don’t read them until you’re done taking the survey. edit: note that a lot of this is going to be processed by computer. that means you should give simple, machine readable answers. if the question is “what city do you live in?”, a simple, machine-readable answer is “los angeles”, which easily aggregates into the same bin as everyone else who answered “los angeles”. bad answers would include “i live in los angeles”, “just north of los angeles”, “los angeles but sometimes in dallas for work”, et cetera. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged meta, survey | 127 comments watch new health picks posted on january 18, 2017 by scott alexander so far most of trump’s appointments have been ordinary conservative hardliners or ethically-compromised rich people. but there’s a chance that some of his health care picks could be really interesting. i’m not talking about health and human services nominee tom price. as far as i can tell he’s an ordinary conservative hardliner (not to mention an orthopaedic surgeon), and pretty par for the course. but i’ve seen three names mentioned as top candidates for fda commissioner – scott gottleib, jim o’neill, and balaji srinavasan. i don’t know much about gottleib, besides that he writes for forbes about how obamacare is bad. but either of the latter two would be shocking breaks with tradition and potentially among the highest-value political experiments of all time. jim o’neill is a director at mithril capital and a former deputy deputy (sic) hhs secretary. he’s a (former?) board member of the seasteading institute, which hopes to create a libertarian utopia on a floating platform in international waters, and which recently signed a preliminary agreement with french polynesia to begin pre-construction planning. he’s also a director of sens, aubrey de grey’s collaboration to fight aging, and has proposed increasing the organ supply by paying donors. also, i see him commenting on eliezer’s facebook feed sometimes, and he seems to be facebook friends with eliezer, julia galef, and, uh, me. maybe he reads this blog? hi, jim! balaji srinivasan describes himself as “a computer scientist, investor, entrepreneur, and academic”, and previously founded a very successful genetic testing startup; now he holds various bitcoin-related positions. he’s famous (infamous?) for a piece called silicon valley’s ultimate exit, where he promotes “exit” over “voice”; he suggests silicon valley find ways to create an alternate society that escapes the dysfunction of the federal government and the rest of the country – both figuratively via new institutions like bitcoin and eventually literally through possibilities like seasteading. he called the fda “the man to beat – or escape, via exit – whether you want a new drug or to get to transhumanism”. and, uh, he also follows me on social media, which is definitely not a characteristic i expected multiple candidates for fda director to have in common. i worry that my more liberal friends won’t be sufficiently impressed. they’re thinking “oh, more libertarians, like all those small-government people from the bush and reagan administrations”. my own view is that “libertarian” gets used to pick out at least two different clusters of people. one is rich crony capitalists who want a convenient excuse to cut their own taxes and roll back workers’ rights, but who fight tooth and nail against any decreased subsidies or increased competition that might threaten their own comfortable position. the other is people who are actually interested in using the power of competition to kindle innovation, improve access, bring down entrenched interests, and ultimately help regular people. the first cluster of libertarians has been around forever. o’neill and srinivasan seem to be part of the second. a principled, intelligent cluster-two libertarian getting the top job at one of the country’s worst bureaucracies would be practically unprecedented. (and lest i try to weasel out of this one later, let me state for the record that if o’neill or srinivasan get chosen and are able to implement their preferred policies, but the us pharmaceutical industry doesn’t improve dramatically, i should accept it as a defeat for one or another hypothesis of mine. either free markets don’t work in medicine, or i am so terrible at identifying principled intelligent libertarians that i might as well give up.) some important policies that an fda commissioner like o’neill or srinivasan might be able to implement with high benefit and little cost: 1. medical reciprocity with europe and other first world countries (the atlantic, health affairs, marginal revolution). right now, europe has a licensing agency about as strict as the fda approving medications invented in europe. any pharma company that wants their medication approved in both the us and europe has to spend a billion or so dollars getting it approved by the fda, and then another billion or so dollars getting it approved by the europeans. a lot of pharma companies don’t want to bother, with the end result that europe has many good medications that america doesn’t, and vice versa. just in my own field, amisulpride, one of the antipsychotics with the best safety/efficacy balance, has been used successfully in europe for twenty years and is totally unavailable here despite a real need for better antipsychotic drugs. if the fda agreed to approve any medication already approved by europe (or to give it a very expedited review process), we could get an immediate windfall of dozens of drugs with unimpeachable records for almost no cost. instead, in the real world, we’re cracking down on imported canadian pharmaceuticals because the canadians don’t have exactly our same fda which means that for all we know they might be adding thalidomide to every pill or something. this is exactly the sort of silly anti-competitive cronyist practice that a principled intelligent libertarian could do away with. 2. burdensome approval process for generic medications (ssc, more ssc). how come martin shkreli can hike the dose of an off-patent toxoplasma drug 5000%, and everyone just has to take it lying down even though the drug itself is so easy to produce that high school chemistry classes make it just to show they can? the reason is that every new company that makes a drug, even a widely-used generic drug that’s already been proven safe, has to go through a separate approval process that costs millions of dollars and takes two to three years – and which other companies in the market constantly try to sabotage through legal action. shkreli can get away with his price hike because he knows that by the time the fda gives anyone permission to compete with him, he’ll have made his fortune and moved on to his next nefarious scheme. if the fda allowed reputable pharmaceutical companies in good standing to produce whatever generic drugs they wanted, the same as every other company is allowed to make whatever products they want, scandals like daraprim and epipens would be a thing of the past, and the price of many medications could decrease by an order of magnitude. 3. stop having that thing allowing companies to “steal” popular and effective drugs that have been in the public domain for years, claim them as their private property, shut down all competitors, and jack up the price 10x just by bringing them up to date with modern fda bureaucracy. 4. stop having that thing where drug companies can legally bribe other companies not to compete with them. i like this one because it sounds anti-libertarian (we’re imposing a new regulation on what companies can do!) but i think it’s exactly the sort of thing that the crony capitalists would never touch but which principled intelligent libertarians like o’neill and srinivasan might be open to, in order to bring more actors into the marketplace. 5. stop thwarting consumer diagnostic products and genetic tests (ssc, more ssc). srinivasan comes from the genetic testing world himself, so he’s likely to be extra sympathetic to this. i notice that jim o’neill had (in 2014) a much more radical proposal than any of these: that the fda should approve drugs based on safety but not efficacy; that is, drug companies have to prove that their drug isn’t dangerous, but they don’t have to do the long-term super-expensive studies proving that it works. this isn’t quite as crazy as it sounds – it just means we’d need to use academic studies and good judgment to figure out what works. we do this already in many cases – with drugs that were grandfathered in before the fda existed (eg penicillin), or with drugs that the fda approved for one indication but we use off-label but which we use for another indication (eg prozac for anxiety). the best-case scenario is that a safety-but-not-efficacy regime would replicate that kind of careful skepticism across the board. the worst-case scenario is that we end up with a lot of ineffective drugs being used for a decade or so until science can catch up and prove them ineffective – something which is arguably already happening. honestly this kind of policy is probably too revolutionary even for me – but in a world full of stupid regressive fear-driven bad ideas, it’s a bold revolutionary high-variance bad idea, and i respect that (see part 3 here for another problem with this idea). the pharmaceutical industry stock index hasn’t moved much since some of these names started being floated. i’m not sure what to make of this; i wouldn’t have been able to predict which direction it would go, but i would have expected some direction. one more really interesting potential appointment. nature.com: surprising contenders emerge for trump’s nih chief. most of the contenders aren’t that surprising: collins is the current nih chief, and harris is a republican congressman with an md and a strong interest in health policy. one interesting idea of harris’ is a pledge to lower the age at which researchers get their first grant, which would address a widely shared concern that we’re losing out on creative ideas because people have to spend decades learning to conform and playing academic politics before anyone pays attention to them. i guess this could be good (though see here, apparently the current nih director supports this as well). but one name stands out: stanford statistician john ioannidis, famous for promoting high quality studies and raising the standard of medical research. i don’t know what his administrative credentials are or what talents you need to run the nih, but along with the cochrane people he sets the gold standard for trustworthy bioscience, and having him in a high scientific position would do more to raise my confidence in the standard of us medical research than almost anything else i can think of. i would say these picks raise my previously abysmal opinion of trump, except that they all show the obvious hand of peter thiel. and i’m not sure it’s possible to raise my opinion of thiel at this point without me doing something awkward like starting a cult. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged medicine, politics | 613 comments another followup to “economists on education” posted on january 17, 2017 by scott alexander last month i argued that a news article misrepresented the feelings of economists on school vouchers. i got a bit of pushback from people who thought i had just misread it, and that it wasn’t deceptive at all (1, 2, 3), and wrote an addendum post sticking to my guns. one of my new years resolutions is to be more empirical, so i thought this would be a good opportunity for an experiment. i offered to bet at 10:1 odds in the other person’s favor that most people shown the article would believe economists were against school vouchers. noah smith originally took me up on the bet, but later stopped cooperating with me about it and wouldn’t give a straight answer to the question of whether he was retracting his offer. vikram sasi agreed to continue the bet; i’m not sure if he disagreed with my assessment, thought the odds were too good to refuse, or just wanted the experiment to go ahead. i proposed that we show some random people the article, then ask them a few easy comprehension questions to make sure they were putting in a decent effort. then we would ask the following: according to this article: a) most economists support privatizing education b) most economists oppose privatizing education c) unsure / the article doesn’t say the true answer was (c) – the article doesn’t give enough information to tell you what economists think (which turns out to be mostly unsure, with more supporting the privatization than opposing). but i thought the article heavily (and falsely) implied b, and expected most people to give that answer. before vikram and i could agree on exactly how we were going to do this, we got scooped by two other people who did the experiment without asking us. commenter sripada got 40 people to take the survey on mturk, of whom 35 answered the easy questions right and qualified for inclusion. of those 35, 32 of them (91%) answered (b), misinterpreting the article to claim a consensus against privatizing education. only one of them (3%) gave the correct answer (c), accurately noting that the article doesn’t tell us anything about an economic consensus for or against. hanne watkins, a real research psychologist, also did a 50 person mturk survey. i don’t have enough access to her data to limit the sample to people who answered the easy questions right, but among all participants 78% believed that most economists opposed privatization, compared to only 10% who correctly noted that the article didn’t say. vikram graciously accepted these studies as settling the bet, and since more than half of people misinterpreted the article in both, he paid me my $10. i’m really happy about this, not just because i won ten dollars but because i feel like it was a rare example of getting to decisively settle a disagreement. instead of arguing about whether or not the article was misleading, we figured out a way to test it, did the test, and now we know. i should add that some people might think the article was non-misleading in a different way than i did that can’t be settled empirically (noah seems to be in this group), and other people might think the particular set of questions the survey asked was unfair or biased. this is why i wish i’d gotten to bet somebody who i knew really disagreed with me about this, so at least that disagreement could have been settled for sure. as a consolation prize, i will take my ten dollars and my increased certainty that the article didn’t accurately convey economists’ thoughts. thanks to vikram, sripada, and hanne for their help with this. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged misreporting, rationality | 201 comments ot67: comment core posted on january 15, 2017 by scott alexander this is the bi-weekly visible open thread. there are hidden threads every few days here. post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. also: 1. lots of people scored the predictions they posted for 2016; the ones i can find are jongunnarsson, anatoly karlin, anders sandberg, and e. harding – sorry if i missed anybody. and the eukaryote writes blog offers tips for throwing a new years’ prediction party. 2. ozy from thing of things now has a patreon. and quillette, a magazine on sociobiology, academic freedom, and politically incorrect science (which i’ve linked to here a few times) has a patreon too. see jerry coyne endorsing their fundraising drive here. remember, if you don’t like someone who’s asking for money, don’t donate; there’s no need to be a jerk about it in the comments. 3. speaking of patreon, i’m going to try posting some shorter things here sometimes. if a post is unusually short, i won’t charge patrons until i’ve accumulated enough unusually short posts that they add up to one normal-length post (probably two or three). 4. thanks to everyone who came out to uci to attend the irvine meetup last week. hopefully you all had as good a time as i did. 5. since i just got done posting an unsong chapter and i’m still in the relevant frame of mind, comment of the week is jaskologist’s theory of magic. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged open | 872 comments should buzzfeed publish claims which are explosive if true but not yet proven? posted on january 14, 2017 by scott alexander buzzfeed, january 14: a mindset revolution sweeping britain’s classrooms may be built on shaky science. somebody needed to write this article. it’s written very well. i’ve talked to the writer, tom chivers, and he was very careful and seems like a great person. the article even quotes me, although i think if i had gotten to choose a quote of mine for thousands of people to see, it wouldn’t have been the one speculating about carol dweck making a pact with the devil. but i’m not entirely on board with it. growth mindset has been really hyped and carol dweck has said it can do implausibly exciting things, okay. a lot of smart people are very suspicious of growth mindset and think there has to be some trick, sure. there’s a high prior that something is up, definitely. but one thing that needs to be at the core of any article like this is that, if there’s a trick, we haven’t found it. i tried to be really clear about this in my own (mostly pessimistic) article on the subject: it is right smack in the middle of a bunch of fields that have all started seeming a little dubious recently. most of the growth mindset experiments have used priming to get people in an effort-focused or an ability-focused state of mind, but recent priming experiments have famously failed to replicate and cast doubt on the entire field. and growth mindset has an obvious relationship to stereotype threat, which has also started seeming very shaky recently. so i have every reason to be both suspicious of and negatively disposed toward growth mindset. which makes it appalling that the studies are so damn good. this is the context of my speculation that carol dweck has made a pact with the devil. i haven’t accused (for example) the stereotype threat people of making a pact with the devil. they did some crappy studies and exaggerated the results. that doesn’t require any diabolic help. any social scientist can do that, and most of them do. what’s interesting about the growth mindset research is that it looks just like the sort of thing that should fall apart with a tiny gust of wind, but it actually hangs together pretty well. buzzfeed doesn’t really challenge that. the article spends most of its time snarking about how overhyped growth mindset is – and no objections there, given that its advocates claim that it can eg help defuse the israel-palestine conflict and bring peace to the middle east. it spends a bit more time talking about how many people are doubtful – no objections there either, i’m doubtful too. but in terms of the evidence against it, it’s kind of thin. i only see three real points: first, it uses a technique called grim (granularity-related inconsistency of means). i like its explanation so i’m just going to quote it verbatim: t works like this: imagine you have three children, and want to find how many siblings they have, on average. finding an average, or mean, will always involve adding up the total number of siblings and dividing by the number of children – three. so the answer will always either be a whole number, or will end in .33 (a third) or .67 (two thirds). if there was a study that looked at three children and found they had, on average, 1.25 siblings, it would be wrong – because you can’t get that answer from the mean of three whole numbers. but dweck says that she “took ambiguous answers as half scores” – maybe if the child was halfway between growth mindset and fixed mindset it was counted as a 0.5. it’s bad practice to do this kind of thing without mentioning it. but everyone does some bad practices sometime. and i don’t see anybody claiming it affected the results, which were very strong and not likely to stand or fall based on these sorts of things. nobody is claiming fraud, and dweck released her original data which looks pretty much like she was generally honest but had some bad reporting practice. neither the statistician involved nor buzzfeed claims this affects dweck’s work very much. second, it mentions stuart ritchie’s criticism of a couple of recent dweck papers which show “marginally significant” results. these results are so weak that they’re probably coincidence, but the paper hypes them up. there are a couple of studies like this, but they’re all in very tangential areas of mindsetology, like how children inherit their parents’ mindsets. the original studies, again, show very strong results that don’t need this kind of pleading. for example, the one i cited in my original post got seven different results at the p lot of studies like this. third, it mentions a psychologist timothy bates who has tried to replicate dweck’s experiments (at least) twice, and failed. this is the strongest evidence the article presents. but i don’t think any of bates’ failed replications have been published – or at least i couldn’t find them. yet hundreds of studies that successfully demonstrate growth mindset have been published. just as a million studies of a fake phenomenon will produce a few positive results, so a million replications of a real phenomenon will produce a few negative results. we have to look at the entire field and see the balance of negative and positive results. the last time i tried to do this, the only thing i could find was this meta-analysis of 113 studies which found a positive effect for growth mindset and relatively little publication bias in the field. my intuition tells me not to believe this meta-analysis. but i think it’s really important to emphasize that i’m going off intuition. there’s no shame in defying the data when you think that’s justified, but you had better be really aware that’s what you’re doing. i guess my concern is this: the buzzfeed article sounds really convincing. but i could write an equally convincing article, with exactly the same structure, refuting eg global warming science. i would start by talking about how global warming is really hyped in the media (true!), that people are making various ridiculous claims about it (true!), interview a few scientists who doubt it (98% of climatologists believing it means 2% don’t), and cite two or three studies that fail to find it (98% of studies supporting it means 2% don’t). then i would point out slight statistical irregularities in some of the key global warming papers, because every paper has slight statistical irregularities. then i would talk about the replication crisis a lot. i could do this with pretty much any theory i wanted. any technique strong enough to disprove anything disproves nothing. (and this is especially important in light of recent really strange negative results that eg fail to find a sunk cost effect, something i would hate to enshrine as “well, guess this has been debunked, no such thing as sunk cost now”) again, this isn’t to say i believe in growth mindset. i recently talked to a totally different professor who said he’d tried and failed to replicate some of the original growth mindset work (again, not yet published). but we should do this the right way and not let our intuitions leap ahead of the facts. i worry that one day there’s going to be some weird effect that actually is a bizarre miracle. studies will confirm it again and again. and if we’re not careful, we’ll just say “yeah, but replication crisis, also i heard a rumor that somebody failed to confirm it,” and then forget about it. and then we’ll miss our chance to bring peace to the middle east just by doing a simple experimental manipulation on the prime minister of israel. i think it’s good that people are starting to question growth mindset. but at this point questioning it isn’t enough. in my essay i tried to find problems that might have caused spurious effects in dweck’s studies, and patterns inconsistent with growth mindset being powerful. i think we need to do more of that, plus look for specific statistical and experimental flaws in the papers supporting growth mindset, plus start collecting real published papers that fail to replicate growth mindset. instead of talking about how sketchy it is, we need to actually disprove it. we owe it to ourselves, to carol dweck, and to her infernal masters. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged psychology | 62 comments why do test scores plateau? posted on january 13, 2017 by scott alexander i just got my exam results, so let’s talk medical residency standardized test statistics. in particular, let’s talk about average results by year – that is, compare doctors in their first year of training, their second year of training, etc. i found three datasets. one is for internal medicine residents over their three-year education. another is for psychiatry residents over their four-year education. the last is for surgery residents over their five-year education. all of them are standardized to a mean of 500 and standard deviation of 100 for all years lumped together. here’s how they look: internal medicine (numbers eyeballed from graph) y1: 425 y2: 500 y3: 550 psychiatry y1: 412 y2: 485 y3: 534 y4: 547 surgery y1: 399 y2: 493 y3: 543 y4: 565 y5: 570 year of education starts out as a relatively important factor relative to individual differences, but quickly becomes irrelevant. there’s only a 17% chance that a randomly chosen first-year surgeon will know more about surgery than an average second-year. but there’s a 31% chance a second-year will know more than a third-year, and a 48% chance that a fourth-year will know more than a fifth-year. compare fourth-year and fifth-year surgeons, and it’s pretty close to 50-50 which of them will know more surgery. (also, four percent of final-year surgeons about to graduate their training know less than a first-year trainee who just walked through the door. enjoy thinking about that next time you get an operation) it looks like people learn the most in their first year, and less every following year. checking averages of all the programs together supports this: y1 – y2: + 81 points y2 – y3: + 50 points y3 – y4: + 18 points y4 – y5: + 5 points the standardized nature of the scoring hides how minimal these gains are. the surgery exam report tells me the raw percent correct, which goes like this: y1: 62% y2: 70% y3: 75% y4: 76% y5: 77% so these numbers eventually plateau. i don’t think any residency program has a sixth year, but if it did people probably wouldn’t learn very much in it. why not? might it be a simple ceiling effect – ie there’s only so much medicine to learn, and once you learn it, you’re done? no. we see above that y5 surgeons are only getting 76% of questions right, well below the test ceiling. my hard-copy score report give similar numbers for psychiatry. also, individuals can do much better than yearly-averages. some psychiatrists i know consistently score in the high 600s / low 700s every year. why can’t more years of education bring final-year residents closer to these high performers? might it be that final-year residents stop caring – the medical equivalent of senioritis? no. score change per year seems similar across residencies regardless of how long the residencies are. for example, internal medicine residents gain 50 points in year 3, about the same as psychiatrists and surgeons, even though internists finish that year, psychiatrists have one year left to go, and surgeons have two. might it be that programs stop teaching residents after three years or so, and they just focus on treating patients and not learning? that hasn’t been my experience. in my own residency program, every year attends the same number of hours of lectures per week and gets assigned the same number of papers and presentations. i think this is pretty typical. might it be that residents only learn by seeing patients, and there’s only a certain number of kinds of patients that you see regularly in an average hospital, so once you learn the kinds of cases you see, you’re done? and then more book learning doesn’t help at all? i think this is getting close, but it can’t be the right answer. if you look at that surgery table again, you see relatively similar trajectories for the sorts of things you learn by seeing patients (“patient care”, “clinical management”) and the sorts of things you learn from books and lectures (“medical knowledge, applied science”). i don’t have a good answer for what’s going on. my gut feeling is that knowledge involves trees of complex facts branching off from personal experience and things that are constantly reinforced. depending on an individual’s intelligence and interest in the topic, those trees can reach different depths before collapsing on themselves. spaced repetition programs like anki talk about the forgetting curve, a model where memorized facts naturally decay after a certain amount of time until you remind yourself of them, after which they start decaying again (more slowly), and so on until by your nth repetition you’ll remember it for years or even the rest of your life. most people don’t use spaced repetition software, at least not consistently. for them, they’ll remember only those facts that get reinforced naturally. this is certainly true of doctors. by a weird turn of fate i earned a degree in obstetrics in 2012; five years later my knowledge of the subject has dwindled to a vague feeling that this comic isn’t completely accurate. on the other hand, i remember lots of facts about psychiatry and am optimistic about taking a board exam on the subject in september. but most residents in a given specialty work about the same number of hours, see about the same sorts of patients – and yet still get very different scores on their exams. my guess is that individual differences in intelligence and interest affect things in two ways. first, some people probably have better memories than others, and can learn something if they go six months between reminders, whereas other people might forget it unless they get reminders every other month. second, some people might be more intellectually curious than others, and so read a lot of journal articles that keep reminding them of things – whereas other people only think about them when it’s vital to the care of a patient they have right in front of them. this still doesn’t feel right to me; i remember some things i’m not sure i ever get reminded about. probably the degree to which you find something interesting matters a lot. and maybe there’s also a network effect, where when you think about any antidepressant (for example), it slightly reinforces and acts as a reminder about all your antidepressant-related knowledge, so that the degree to which everything you know is well-integrated and acts as a coherent whole matters a lot too. eventually you get to an equilibrium, where the amount of new knowledge you’re learning each day is the same as the amount of old knowledge you’re forgetting – and that’s your exam score. and maybe in medicine, given the amount of patient care and studying the average resident does each day, that takes three years or so. why does this matter? a while ago i looked at standardized test scores for schoolchildren by year, eg 1st-graders and 2nd-graders taking the same standardized test. the second-graders did noticeably better than the first graders; obviously 12th graders would do better still. but this unfairly combines the effects of extra education with the effects of an extra year of development. a twelfth-grader’s brain is more mature than a first-grader’s. louis benezet experimented with teaching children no math until seventh grade, after which it took only a few months’ instruction to get them to perform at a seventh grade level. it would sure be awkward if that was how everything worked. medical residency exams avoid this problem by testing doctors with (one hopes) fully mature brains. they find diminishing returns after only a few years. how much relevance does this have to ordinary education? i’m not sure. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged education, statistics | 111 comments heuristics work until they don’t posted on january 11, 2017 by scott alexander i. i got to talk to some ai researchers last week, and they emphasized how surprised everyone had been by recent progress in the field. they all agreed on why they were surprised: the “ai winters”, two (or so) past episodes when ai hype got out of control and led to an embarrassing failure to meet expectations. eventually everyone learned the heuristic “ai progress will never be as fast as people expect”. then ai progress went faster than expected, and everyone using the old heuristic was caught flat-footed, denying the evidence of their own eyes. is this surprising? it’s hard (and possibly meaningless) to segment the history of ai into distinct “eras”, but let’s try it just for fun: suppose that there were two past eras, both of which went worse than expected. if there are equal chances of an era meeting, exceeding, or missing expectations, then there’s a 22% chance that we either get two consecutive booms or two consecutive busts by pure coincidence. if we form a heuristic around this (“it’s always boom” or “it’s always bust”), then we’re interpreting noise and the future is likely to surprise us. a quick and dirty bayesian calculation: imagine three models. in model a, researchers are biased towards optimism: 80% of the time, they will predict greater success than they actually attain, 10% of the time they will get it exactly right, and 10% of the time they will undershoot. in model b, researchers are biased towards pessimism to the same degree. in model c, researchers are unbiased and will overshoot, undershoot, and hit expectations with equal probability. suppose we start with a 50% prior on model c, and equal 25% probabilities for a and b. after observing one era of inflated expectations, we should have 52% chance a, 6% chance b, and 42% chance c. after observing two such eras, we should think 74% a, 1% b, and 25% c. adding up the chances of all of the models, there’s a 67% chance that the next era will also be one of inflated expectations, but there’s a 33% chance it won’t be. this is all completely made up, plus my math is probably wrong. my point is that these kinds of “heuristics” gleaned from n = 2 data points are a lot less interesting than you would think. getting fooled twice in the same way probably feels pretty convincing, and i can’t blame the people involved for wanting to take a hard line against ever falling for it again. but their confidence that they’re right should be pretty low. ii. thinking about this reminded me of an article from the week, november 2012: romney genuinely believed that he would become the nation’s 45th president, and was “shellshocked” by his landslide loss. “i don’t think there was one person who saw this coming,” one senior adviser told jan crawford at cbs news. why was team romney so certain of victory? they simply did not believe that younger voters and minorities would turn out the way they did in 2008. “as a result,” says crawford, “they believed that the public/media polls were skewed” in obama’s favor, and rejiggered them to show romney with “turnout levels more favorable to romney.” in essence, romney “unskewed” the polls, mirroring widely mocked moves by conservatives to show their candidate with a lead, epitomized by the now-infamous website unskewedpolls.com. romney’s defenders say he had plausible reasons to believe obama’s turnout would be lower; less charitable commentators say romney and his aides were stuck in a conservative media echo chamber at odds with reality. mitt romney lost in exactly the way all the polls had predicted he would lose, but he wasn’t expecting it because he had cheerfully constructed a story of decreased minority turnout which no real poll supported. this story became a kind of king canute style warning of the folly of man – just accept the fricking polls, don’t come up with some private narrative about how decreased turnout will show up on a white horse and save you at the last second. but we all know what happened in 2016. in retrospect, the fact that decreased minority turnout didn’t happen in one election, with the most popular-among-minorities candidate of all time, shouldn’t have been enough to form a strong heuristic that it would never happen at all. this is even worse than the story above, because it’s n = 1. i wonder if part of it is the degree to which romney’s loss formed a useful moral parable – the story of the arrogant fool who said that all the evidence against him was wrong, but got his comeuppance. well, this last election taught us that arrogant fools don’t get their comeuppance as consistently as we would like. iii. speaking of the 2016 election, i feel the same way about this explanation of hillary’s loss. it spins a narrative where the hillary campaign management put all of their trust in flashy big data and ignored the grizzled campaign specialists who had boots on the ground, as if this was a moral lesson we should all take to heart. but moneyball makes the opposite argument. there, managers boldly decided to trust in statistics instead of just listening to the “intuitions” and “conventional wisdom” of professed experts, and they trounced the grizzled people with their ground-boots. anyone who learned the obvious lesson from moneyball (“hard math can defeat fallible human intuitions) would fail at the 2016 campaign, and anyone who learned the obvious lesson from the 2016 campaign (“real experience and domain knowledge beat overeducated big data hotshots every time”) would fail at the 2003 baseball season. the solution is: stop treating life as a series of moral parables. once you get that, it all just becomes evidence – and then you wonder whether a single data point about presidential campaigns necessarily generalizes to baseball or whatever. iv. if i’ve successfully convinced you that you shouldn’t form strong heuristics just by looking at a few salient examples where they seem to hold true, then shame on you. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged rationality | 348 comments predictions for 2017 posted on january 6, 2017 by scott alexander at the beginning of every year, i make predictions. at the end of every year, i score them. so here are a hundred more for 2017. world events 1. us will not get involved in any new major war with death toll of > 100 us soldiers: 60% 2. north korea’s government will survive the year without large civil war/revolt: 95% 3. no terrorist attack in the usa will kill > 100 people: 90% 4. …in any first world country: 80% 5. assad will remain president of syria: 80% 6. israel will not get in a large-scale war (ie >100 israeli deaths) with any arab state: 90% 7. no major intifada in israel this year (ie > 250 israeli deaths, but not in cast lead style war): 80% 8. no interesting progress with gaza or peace negotiations in general this year: 90% 9. no cast lead style bombing/invasion of gaza this year: 90% 10. situation in israel looks more worse than better: 70% 11. syria’s civil war will not end this year: 60% 12. isis will control less territory than it does right now: 90% 13. isis will not continue to exist as a state entity in iraq/syria: 50% 14. no major civil war in middle eastern country not currently experiencing a major civil war: 90% 15. libya to remain a mess: 80% 16. ukraine will neither break into all-out war or get neatly resolved: 80% 17. no major revolt (greater than or equal to tiananmen square) against chinese communist party: 95% 18. no major war in asia (with >100 chinese, japanese, south korean, and american deaths combined) over tiny stupid islands: 99% 19. no exchange of fire over tiny stupid islands: 90% 20. no announcement of genetically engineered human baby or credible plan for such: 90% 21. emdrive is launched into space and testing is successfully begun: 70% 22. a significant number of skeptics will not become convinced emdrive works: 80% 23. a significant number of believers will not become convinced emdrive doesn’t work: 60% 24. no major earthquake (>100 deaths) in us: 99% 25. no major earthquake (>10000 deaths) in the world: 60% 26. keith ellison chosen as new dnc chair: 70% europe 27. no country currently in euro or eu announces new plan to leave: 80% 28. france does not declare plan to leave eu: 95% 29. germany does not declare plan to leave eu: 99% 30. no agreement reached on “two-speed eu”: 80% 31. the uk triggers article 50: 90% 32. marine le pen is not elected president of france: 60% 33. angela merkel is re-elected chancellor of germany: 60% 34. theresa may remains pm of britain: 80% 35. fewer refugees admitted 2017 than 2016: 95% economics 36. bitcoin will end the year higher than $1000: 60% 37. oil will end the year higher than $50 a barrel: 60% 38. …but lower than $60 a barrel: 60% 39. dow jones will not fall > 10% this year: 50% 40. shanghai index will not fall > 10% this year: 50% trump administration 41. donald trump remains president at the end of 2017: 90% 42. no serious impeachment proceedings are active against trump: 80% 43. construction on mexican border wall (beyond existing barriers) begins: 80% 44. trump administration does not initiate extra prosecution of hillary clinton: 90% 45. us gdp growth lower than in 2016: 60% 46. us unemployment to be higher at end of year than beginning: 60% 47. us does not withdraw from large trade org like wto or nafta: 90% 48. us does not publicly and explicitly disavow one china policy: 95% 49. no race riot killing > 5 people: 95% 50. us lifts at least half of existing sanctions on russia: 70% 51. donald trump’s approval rating at the end of 2017 is lower than fifty percent: 80% 52. …lower than forty percent: 60% communities 53. ssc will remain active: 95% 54. ssc will get fewer hits than in 2016: 60% 55. at least one ssc post > 100,000 hits: 70% 56. i will complete an lw/ssc survey: 80% 57. i will finish a long faq this year: 60% 58. shireroth will remain active: 70% 59. no co-bloggers (with more than 5 posts) on ssc by the end of this year: 80% 60. less wrong renaissance attempt will seem less (rather than more) successful by end of this year: 90% 61. > 15,000 twitter followers by end of this year: 80% 62. i won’t stop using twitter, tumblr, or facebook: 90% 63. i will attend the bay area solstice next year: 90% 64. …some other solstice: 60% 65. …not the new york solstice: 60% work 66. i will take the job i am currently expecting to take: 90% 67. …at the time i am expecting to take it, without any delays: 80% 68. i will like the job and plan to continue doing it for a while: 70% 69. i will pass my boards: 90% 70. i will be involved in at least one published/accepted-to-publish research paper by the end of 2017: 50% 71. i will present a research paper at the regional conference: 80% 72. i will attend the apa national meeting in san diego: 90% 73. none of my outpatients to be hospitalized for psychiatric reasons during the first half of 2017: 50% 74. none of my outpatients to be involuntarily committed to psych hospital by me during the first half of 2017: 70% 75. none of my outpatients to attempt suicide during the first half of 2017: 90% 76. i will not have scored 95th percentile or above when i get this year’s prite scores back: 60% personal 77. amazon will not harass me to get the $40,000 they gave me back: 80% 78. …or at least will not be successful: 90% 79. i will drive cross-country in 2017: 70% 80. i will travel outside the us in 2017: 70% 81. …to europe: 50% 82. i will not officially break up with any of my current girlfriends: 60% 83. k will spend at least three months total in michigan this year: 70% 84. i will get at least one new girlfriend: 70% 85. i will not get engaged: 90% 86. i will visit the bay in may 2017: 60% 87. i will have moved to the bay area: 99% 88. i won’t live in godric’s hollow for at least two weeks continuous: 70% 89. i won’t live in volterra for at least two weeks continuous: 70% 90. i won’t live in the bailey for at least two weeks continuous: 95% 91. i won’t live in some other rationalist group home for at least two weeks continuous: 90% 92. i will be living in a house (incl group house) and not apartment building at the end of 2017: 60% 93. i will still not have gotten my elective surgery: 90% 94. i will not have been hospitalized (excluding er) for any other reason: 95% 95. i will make my savings target at the end of 2017: 60% 96. i will not be taking any nootropic (except zma) daily or near-daily during any 2-month period this year: 90% 97. i won’t publicly and drastically change highest-level political/religious/philosophical positions (eg become a muslim or republican): 90% 98. i will not get drunk this year: 80% 99. i get at least one article published on a major site like huffington post or vox or new statesman or something: 50% 100. i attend at least one wedding this year: 50% 101. still driving my current car at the end of 2017: 90% 102. car is not stuck in shop for repairs for >1 day during 2017: 60% 103. i will use lyft at least once in 2017: 60% 104. i weight > 185 pounds at the end of 2017: 60% 105. i weight share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged predictions | 421 comments trump and the batman effect posted on january 3, 2017 by scott alexander today on trump twitter: "@danscavino: ford to scrap mexico plant, invest in michigan due to trump policies"https://t.co/137nuo03gl — donald j. trump (@realdonaldtrump) january 3, 2017 here’s my concern. when us companies do something that sounds good in the next few years, whether it’s hiring new people, or deciding to stay in the united states, or reporting high profits, some of them are going to credit president trump. first, because it’s going to get them good press. “ford decides not to build plant in mexico” is tenth-page news. “ford decides not to build plant in mexico because of president trump” is front-page news. but second, because it’s going to make the president like them. i don’t know whether trump is secretly sending people to whatever conferences all of these people go to, saying “if you decide to do something good, give me credit, and i’ll do you a favor later”. i assume he isn’t. this is the sort of thing that coordinates itself, without any inconvenient documents that can get posted to wikileaks later. if you’re the ceo of ford, and you notice you’re doing something that would make trump look really good if you attributed it to him, why not attribute it to him for free, then remind him how much he likes you next time you need a tax cut or a subsidy or something? trump has put a lot of effort into crafting his image as a person who repays favors (think appointing many of his earliest supporters to cabinet positions) – you think businesspeople aren’t going to notice that kind of thing? but also: big day on thursday for indiana and the great workers of that wonderful state.we will keep our companies and jobs in the u.s. thanks carrier — donald j. trump (@realdonaldtrump) november 30, 2016 0.1% of the time a us company does something that looks bad, like close a plant or move jobs overseas, trump is going to launch a media crusade against them. the presidency has a big pulpit and he’s going to get a lot of people angry. then trump will offer them some kind of deal, and the company will back down. not because they’ve learned the error of their ways. not even because the deal was so good. but because making the president (and the public) happy is much more important to them than moving jobs to mexico or whatever they were doing before. mother jones mentions in passing that carrier air conditioning, trump’s biggest job “success” so far, is owned by a giant defense contractor who gets probably like 1% of their profits from air conditioning. presumably the company would be happy to never sell another air conditioner again if it meant that the government chooses their fighter jets over the competing brand. knowing trump’s style of corruption, they have every reason to believe this will happen after they handed him a big pr victory. this plan isn’t going to scale. even trump can only create so many media circuses. 999 companies will successfully move to mexico in the amount of time it takes trump to convince one company not to. but almost tautologically, the only ones we’ll ever hear about are the ones that become media circuses, and so it will look like trump keeps winning. so based on these two strategies, we are in for four years of sham trump victories which look really convincing on a first glance. every couple of weeks, until it gets boring, another company is going to say trump convinced them to keep jobs in the united states. the total number of jobs saved this way will never be more than a tiny fraction of the jobs that could be saved by (eg) good economic policy, but nobody knows anything about economic policy and trump will make sure everybody hears about ford keeping jobs in the us. every one of these victories will actively make the world worse, in the sense that these big companies will get taxpayer subsidies or favors they can call in later to distort government priorities, but nobody’s going to notice these either. i think it’s important that we be prepared for this and send a clear message, before this gets any worse, that these aren’t to be taken seriously. i also think it’s important to be prepared for the fact that this clear message won’t work. imagine you’re a factory worker in indiana, and every week you hear on the news that trump convinced another factory to stay in the us. and also, you read an editorial by paul krugman or someone saying that this is all a trick. what do you end out believing? and saving jobs isn’t the only way he can do this. trump’s talent is pr, having his finger on the pulse of the media. he can spot things like that guy who raised the price of the toxoplasma drug 1000%, and then he can go in, make some corrupt deal, and get him to back down. he can spot all of those culture war things where the entire country is going to spend a month focused on the same small-town bakery, and by throwing around the entire might of the federal government he can probably make everyone back off and pose together for a nice group photo. if he can get all of these things right (and it will play exactly to his talents), then a majority of people won’t care what policies his administration passes. i think this is a big part of his plan. there’s an old joke about batman. suppose you’re a hypercompetent billionaire in a decaying city, and you want to do something about the crime problem. what’s your best option? maybe you could to donate money to law-enforcement, or after-school programs for at-risk teens, or urban renewal. or you could urge your company full of engineering geniuses to invent new police tactics and better security systems. or you could use your influence as a beloved celebrity to petition the government to pass laws which improve efficiency of the justice system. bruce wayne decided to dress up in a bat costume and personally punch criminals. and we love him for it. i worry that trump’s plan for his administration is to dress up in a president costume and personally punch people we don’t like, while leaving policy to rot. and i worry it’s going to work. [prediction: highly-publicized stories about trump successfully keeping businesses in the us on a case-by-case basis, which never add up to a significant number of jobs saved, will keep coming, and be a central point of how his administration relates to the public over the next year: 50%] share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged politics | 812 comments ot66: thread lang syne (+ irvine meetup) posted on january 1, 2017 by scott alexander this is the bi-weekly visible open thread. there are hidden threads every few days here. post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. also: 1. happy new year! and thanks to everyone who read, contributed to, and supported this blog during 2016. 2. i’ll be in irvine, california early next week. if anyone there wants to meet, i can make the peet’s coffee at 4213 campus dr, 7:00 pm on january 4th. don’t expect many posts during that time. 3. i’ve updated the mistakes page with a few new mistakes and metamistakes. 4. i know that raikoth.net is down. i think i am going to let it disappear quietly. it was poorly organized and too linked to my real name. i’ll repost the non-libertarian faq and other interesting stuff here sometime soon. thanks to everyone who pointed this out to me. share this:twitterfacebook posted in uncategorized | tagged open | 959 comments ← older posts blogroll embalmed ones anoieaeib common sense atheism less wrong the last psychiatrist fabulous ones alicornutopia unsong innumerable ones n-category cafe put a number on it random critical analysis shtetl-optimized statistical modeling unenumerated mermaids miri miri nothing is mere the merely real stray dogs anonymous mugwump artir follow the squirrel marginal revolution pseudoerasmus the money illusion suckling pigs fredrik deboer unqualified restaurant reservations whole health source those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush saturday morning breakfast cereal those that are included in this classification #slatestarcodex r/slatestarcodex those that are trained 80000 hours blog effective altruism forum givewell blog jeff kaufman luke muehlhauser the unit of caring the whole sky those that at a distance resemble flies agenty duck beeminder nate soares those that belong to the emperor the future primaeval west hunter xenosystems those that have just broken the flower vase armed and dangerous bryan caplan david friedman don't worry about the vase overcoming bias popehat those that tremble as though they are mad 1 boring old man aceso under glass cognition and evolution crazy meds gruntled and hinged real psychiatry shrink rap various others an algorithmic lucidity gene expression information processing melting asphalt meteuphoric otium ribbonfarm the rationalist conspiracy the sideways view thing of things weird sun blog archives january 2017 december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 april 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 july 2014 june 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 full archives meta register log in entries rss comments rss wordpress.org subscribe via email email address recent posts ssc survey 2017 watch new health picks another followup to “economists on education” ot67: comment core should buzzfeed publish claims which are explosive if true but not yet proven? search for: 80,000 hours is a group that helps people interested in helping the world decide on a career path. their new (free) book provides evidence-based advice for how to find and make the most out of an altruistic career. the effective altruism newsletter provides monthly updates on the highest-impact ways to do good and help others. beeminder's an evidence-based willpower augmention tool that collects quantifiable data about your life, then helps you organize it into commitment mechanisms so you can keep resolutions. they've also got a blog about what they're doing here giving what we can is a charitable movement promoting giving some of your money to the developing world or other worthy causes. if you're interested in this, consider taking their pledge as a formal and public declaration of intent. the center for applied rationality conducts workshops which use cognitive science to teach people to achieve their goals more effectively. you can find a self-assessment of some of their results here. qualia builds software for the title and escrow industry, which we chose to maximize our comparative advantage and capitalize on information inefficiency. we're growing fast and are looking for full-stack engineers and quantitative operations hires. email jobs@qualia.com for more information. triplebyte is building an objective and empirically validated software engineering recruitment process. we don’t look at resumes, we just look at whether you can code. we’ve had great success helping slate star codex readers get jobs in the past. we invite you to test your skills and try our process! mealsquares is a "nutritionally complete" food that contains a balanced diet worth of nutrients in a few tasty easily measurable units. think soylent, except zero preparation, made with natural ingredients, and looks/tastes a lot like an ordinary scone. support this blog by donating through patreon. part of amazon affiliate program


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 9876

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 5.87% (580)
and - 2.5% (247)
that - 1.53% (151)
for - 1.28% (126)
his - 1.27% (125)
her - 1.23% (121)
all - 1.1% (109)
this - 1.08% (107)
201 - 0.95% (94)
out - 0.84% (83)
not - 0.8% (79)
are - 0.8% (79)
one - 0.8% (79)
you - 0.8% (79)
will - 0.78% (77)
year - 0.7% (69)
but - 0.66% (65)
with - 0.6% (59)
get - 0.57% (56)
here - 0.55% (54)
any - 0.55% (54)
can - 0.53% (52)
some - 0.53% (52)
about - 0.52% (51)
per - 0.52% (51)
thing - 0.52% (51)
ever - 0.51% (50)
people - 0.47% (46)
they - 0.47% (46)
very - 0.46% (45)
use - 0.46% (45)
end - 0.43% (42)
have - 0.41% (40)
post - 0.41% (40)
than - 0.41% (40)
like - 0.37% (37)
would - 0.36% (36)
which - 0.36% (36)
trump - 0.34% (34)
other - 0.33% (33)
2017 - 0.33% (33)
every - 0.32% (32)
- 0.31% (31)
their - 0.31% (31)
more - 0.31% (31)
who - 0.31% (31)
now - 0.31% (31)
led - 0.3% (30)
our - 0.3% (30)
think - 0.3% (30)
era - 0.3% (30)
them - 0.3% (30)
there - 0.29% (29)
real - 0.29% (29)
king - 0.29% (29)
new - 0.28% (28)
how - 0.28% (28)
man - 0.28% (28)
has - 0.27% (27)
just - 0.27% (27)
ten - 0.27% (27)
set - 0.27% (27)
don’t - 0.26% (26)
90% - 0.26% (26)
article - 0.26% (26)
par - 0.25% (25)
war - 0.25% (25)
see - 0.25% (25)
time - 0.24% (24)
60% - 0.24% (24)
east - 0.24% (24)
pen - 0.24% (24)
age - 0.24% (24)
know - 0.24% (24)
read - 0.23% (23)
two - 0.23% (23)
what - 0.23% (23)
was - 0.23% (23)
way - 0.22% (22)
2016 - 0.22% (22)
low - 0.22% (22)
posted - 0.22% (22)
does - 0.21% (21)
try - 0.21% (21)
it’s - 0.21% (21)
comment - 0.21% (21)
car - 0.21% (21)
gain - 0.21% (21)
mindset - 0.2% (20)
resident - 0.2% (20)
80% - 0.2% (20)
over - 0.2% (20)
most - 0.2% (20)
work - 0.2% (20)
look - 0.19% (19)
going - 0.19% (19)
again - 0.19% (19)
log - 0.19% (19)
least - 0.19% (19)
rest - 0.18% (18)
los - 0.18% (18)
prove - 0.18% (18)
then - 0.18% (18)
jan - 0.18% (18)
able - 0.18% (18)
first - 0.17% (17)
good - 0.17% (17)
own - 0.17% (17)
learn - 0.17% (17)
drug - 0.17% (17)
did - 0.17% (17)
point - 0.17% (17)
january - 0.17% (17)
here’s - 0.17% (17)
these - 0.17% (17)
growth - 0.17% (17)
take - 0.17% (17)
on. - 0.17% (17)
make - 0.17% (17)
even - 0.17% (17)
only - 0.16% (16)
psych - 0.16% (16)
number - 0.16% (16)
bet - 0.16% (16)
book - 0.16% (16)
plan - 0.16% (16)
been - 0.16% (16)
high - 0.16% (16)
studies - 0.16% (16)
also - 0.16% (16)
answer - 0.16% (16)
because - 0.16% (16)
got - 0.16% (16)
same - 0.15% (15)
comments - 0.15% (15)
urge - 0.15% (15)
few - 0.15% (15)
expect - 0.15% (15)
interest - 0.15% (15)
is: - 0.15% (15)
star - 0.15% (15)
might - 0.15% (15)
there’s - 0.15% (15)
three - 0.15% (15)
result - 0.15% (15)
could - 0.15% (15)
form - 0.15% (15)
won - 0.15% (15)
test - 0.15% (15)
year: - 0.15% (15)
lot - 0.15% (15)
core - 0.15% (15)
job - 0.15% (15)
effect - 0.15% (15)
70% - 0.15% (15)
were - 0.15% (15)
this: - 0.14% (14)
week - 0.14% (14)
something - 0.14% (14)
years - 0.14% (14)
want - 0.14% (14)
less - 0.14% (14)
from - 0.14% (14)
2017: - 0.14% (14)
san - 0.14% (14)
right - 0.14% (14)
owe - 0.14% (14)
things - 0.14% (14)
really - 0.14% (14)
should - 0.14% (14)
top - 0.14% (14)
fda - 0.14% (14)
chance - 0.14% (14)
ssc - 0.13% (13)
2014 - 0.13% (13)
give - 0.13% (13)
i’m - 0.13% (13)
say - 0.13% (13)
find - 0.13% (13)
full - 0.13% (13)
results - 0.13% (13)
education - 0.13% (13)
facebook - 0.13% (13)
twitter - 0.13% (13)
call - 0.13% (13)
had - 0.13% (13)
part - 0.12% (12)
sure - 0.12% (12)
come - 0.12% (12)
success - 0.12% (12)
talk - 0.12% (12)
search - 0.12% (12)
may - 0.12% (12)
him - 0.12% (12)
let - 0.12% (12)
day - 0.12% (12)
tell - 0.12% (12)
nth - 0.12% (12)
kind - 0.12% (12)
those - 0.12% (12)
is, - 0.12% (12)
score - 0.12% (12)
stand - 0.12% (12)
2015 - 0.12% (12)
much - 0.12% (12)
exam - 0.12% (12)
companies - 0.12% (12)
old - 0.12% (12)
euro - 0.11% (11)
too - 0.11% (11)
public - 0.11% (11)
mean - 0.11% (11)
question - 0.11% (11)
2013 - 0.11% (11)
share - 0.11% (11)
gains - 0.11% (11)
start - 0.11% (11)
your - 0.11% (11)
gene - 0.11% (11)
won’t - 0.11% (11)
fail - 0.11% (11)
jobs - 0.11% (11)
research - 0.11% (11)
scott - 0.11% (11)
100 - 0.11% (11)
patient - 0.11% (11)
you’re - 0.11% (11)
care - 0.11% (11)
off - 0.11% (11)
blog - 0.1% (10)
many - 0.1% (10)
another - 0.1% (10)
europe - 0.1% (10)
need - 0.1% (10)
doesn’t - 0.1% (10)
help - 0.1% (10)
president - 0.1% (10)
this:twitterfacebook - 0.1% (10)
tagged - 0.1% (10)
though - 0.1% (10)
dweck - 0.1% (10)
uncategorized - 0.1% (10)
probably - 0.1% (10)
everyone - 0.1% (10)
libertarian - 0.1% (10)
agree - 0.1% (10)
its - 0.1% (10)
support - 0.1% (10)
air - 0.1% (10)
where - 0.1% (10)
experiment - 0.1% (10)
believe - 0.1% (10)
alexander - 0.1% (10)
50% - 0.1% (10)
nor - 0.1% (10)
used - 0.1% (10)
predict - 0.1% (10)
major - 0.1% (10)
against - 0.1% (10)
ones - 0.1% (10)
fact - 0.1% (10)
world - 0.1% (10)
she - 0.09% (9)
residents - 0.09% (9)
turn - 0.09% (9)
company - 0.09% (9)
second - 0.09% (9)
org - 0.09% (9)
claim - 0.09% (9)
average - 0.09% (9)
person - 0.09% (9)
each - 0.09% (9)
add - 0.09% (9)
big - 0.09% (9)
put - 0.09% (9)
standard - 0.09% (9)
show - 0.09% (9)
grade - 0.09% (9)
fully - 0.09% (9)
after - 0.09% (9)
pretty - 0.09% (9)
media - 0.09% (9)
feed - 0.09% (9)
economists - 0.09% (9)
survey - 0.09% (9)
95% - 0.09% (9)
romney - 0.09% (9)
data - 0.09% (9)
recent - 0.09% (9)
paper - 0.09% (9)
publish - 0.09% (9)
ways - 0.09% (9)
seem - 0.09% (9)
well - 0.09% (9)
pose - 0.09% (9)
successful - 0.09% (9)
getting - 0.09% (9)
isn’t - 0.08% (8)
dow - 0.08% (8)
why - 0.08% (8)
model - 0.08% (8)
drugs - 0.08% (8)
patients - 0.08% (8)
stop - 0.08% (8)
state - 0.08% (8)
exactly - 0.08% (8)
last - 0.08% (8)
either - 0.08% (8)
month - 0.08% (8)
sort - 0.08% (8)
date - 0.08% (8)
into - 0.08% (8)
better - 0.08% (8)
bad - 0.08% (8)
thread - 0.08% (8)
open - 0.08% (8)
keep - 0.08% (8)
ford - 0.08% (8)
lower - 0.08% (8)
remind - 0.08% (8)
ask - 0.08% (8)
next - 0.08% (8)
it, - 0.08% (8)
hate - 0.08% (8)
until - 0.08% (8)
interesting - 0.08% (8)
them. - 0.07% (7)
government - 0.07% (7)
country - 0.07% (7)
in, - 0.07% (7)
o’neill - 0.07% (7)
whatever - 0.07% (7)
medicine - 0.07% (7)
israel - 0.07% (7)
down - 0.07% (7)
points - 0.07% (7)
surgeon - 0.07% (7)
whether - 0.07% (7)
fall - 0.07% (7)
strong - 0.07% (7)
current - 0.07% (7)
year, - 0.07% (7)
feel - 0.07% (7)
half - 0.07% (7)
cost - 0.07% (7)
move - 0.07% (7)
surgery - 0.07% (7)
science - 0.07% (7)
evidence - 0.07% (7)
back - 0.07% (7)
doing - 0.07% (7)
knowledge - 0.07% (7)
hard - 0.07% (7)
heuristic - 0.07% (7)
it. - 0.07% (7)
become - 0.07% (7)
mention - 0.07% (7)
questions - 0.07% (7)
true - 0.07% (7)
trump’s - 0.07% (7)
once - 0.07% (7)
prediction - 0.07% (7)
me. - 0.07% (7)
process - 0.07% (7)
important - 0.07% (7)
acts - 0.07% (7)
follow - 0.07% (7)
approve - 0.07% (7)
during - 0.07% (7)
health - 0.07% (7)
program - 0.07% (7)
medical - 0.07% (7)
takes - 0.07% (7)
child - 0.07% (7)
tab - 0.06% (6)
donald - 0.06% (6)
policy - 0.06% (6)
member - 0.06% (6)
administration - 0.06% (6)
he’s - 0.06% (6)
before - 0.06% (6)
successfully - 0.06% (6)
bias - 0.06% (6)
without - 0.06% (6)
children - 0.06% (6)
when - 0.06% (6)
this, - 0.06% (6)
anything - 0.06% (6)
poll - 0.06% (6)
pharma - 0.06% (6)
petition - 0.06% (6)
november - 0.06% (6)
example - 0.06% (6)
medication - 0.06% (6)
srinivasan - 0.06% (6)
spend - 0.06% (6)
field - 0.06% (6)
i’ve - 0.06% (6)
still - 0.06% (6)
money - 0.06% (6)
looks - 0.06% (6)
bat - 0.06% (6)
different - 0.06% (6)
evolution - 0.06% (6)
means - 0.06% (6)
live - 0.06% (6)
buzzfeed - 0.06% (6)
involve - 0.06% (6)
favor - 0.06% (6)
decide - 0.06% (6)
hype - 0.06% (6)
effective - 0.06% (6)
bring - 0.06% (6)
“i - 0.06% (6)
published - 0.06% (6)
drive - 0.06% (6)
posts - 0.06% (6)
both - 0.06% (6)
meet - 0.06% (6)
never - 0.06% (6)
convince - 0.06% (6)
remain - 0.06% (6)
enough - 0.06% (6)
miss - 0.06% (6)
unit - 0.06% (6)
reason - 0.06% (6)
(and - 0.06% (6)
long - 0.06% (6)
lead - 0.06% (6)
later - 0.06% (6)
news - 0.06% (6)
death - 0.06% (6)
gust - 0.05% (5)
degree - 0.05% (5)
expectations - 0.05% (5)
uses - 0.05% (5)
worry - 0.05% (5)
graders - 0.05% (5)
expected - 0.05% (5)
random - 0.05% (5)
predictions - 0.05% (5)
hear - 0.05% (5)
10% - 0.05% (5)
famous - 0.05% (5)
through - 0.05% (5)
papers - 0.05% (5)
worse - 0.05% (5)
found - 0.05% (5)
equal - 0.05% (5)
yet - 0.05% (5)
obvious - 0.05% (5)
amount - 0.05% (5)
remember - 0.05% (5)
tried - 0.05% (5)
bit - 0.05% (5)
thought - 0.05% (5)
intuition - 0.05% (5)
percent - 0.05% (5)
surgeons - 0.05% (5)
position - 0.05% (5)
mad - 0.05% (5)
revolution - 0.05% (5)
september - 0.05% (5)
standardized - 0.05% (5)
anyone - 0.05% (5)
wrong - 0.05% (5)
certain - 0.05% (5)
raw - 0.05% (5)
decrease - 0.05% (5)
angeles - 0.05% (5)
price - 0.05% (5)
report - 0.05% (5)
polls - 0.05% (5)
thanks - 0.05% (5)
group - 0.05% (5)
entire - 0.05% (5)
actually - 0.05% (5)
table - 0.05% (5)
great - 0.05% (5)
school - 0.05% (5)
notice - 0.05% (5)
y3: - 0.05% (5)
approved - 0.05% (5)
dollars - 0.05% (5)
rap - 0.05% (5)
nate - 0.05% (5)
earned - 0.05% (5)
residency - 0.05% (5)
agreed - 0.05% (5)
so, - 0.05% (5)
we’re - 0.05% (5)
us: - 0.05% (5)
failed - 0.05% (5)
deaths - 0.05% (5)
far - 0.05% (5)
original - 0.05% (5)
y2: - 0.05% (5)
bin - 0.05% (5)
weeks - 0.05% (5)
based - 0.05% (5)
gets - 0.05% (5)
build - 0.05% (5)
facts - 0.05% (5)
write - 0.05% (5)
happen - 0.05% (5)
pick - 0.05% (5)
can’t - 0.05% (5)
taking - 0.05% (5)
cut - 0.05% (5)
story - 0.05% (5)
works - 0.05% (5)
turnout - 0.05% (5)
four - 0.05% (5)
idea - 0.05% (5)
researchers - 0.05% (5)
mexico - 0.05% (5)
maybe - 0.05% (5)
board - 0.05% (5)
total - 0.05% (5)
meta - 0.05% (5)
attend - 0.05% (5)
whole - 0.05% (5)
convinced - 0.05% (5)
replicate - 0.05% (5)
sometime - 0.05% (5)
campaign - 0.05% (5)
psychiatry - 0.05% (5)
scores - 0.05% (5)
economic - 0.04% (4)
close - 0.04% (4)
claims - 0.04% (4)
instead - 0.04% (4)
relative - 0.04% (4)
y1: - 0.04% (4)
y4: - 0.04% (4)
correct - 0.04% (4)
patreon - 0.04% (4)
middle - 0.04% (4)
results. - 0.04% (4)
programs - 0.04% (4)
here. - 0.04% (4)
making - 0.04% (4)
pact - 0.04% (4)
mindset. - 0.04% (4)
that, - 0.04% (4)
numbers - 0.04% (4)
happy - 0.04% (4)
personal - 0.04% (4)
year. - 0.04% (4)
focus - 0.04% (4)
hours - 0.04% (4)
individual - 0.04% (4)
doubt - 0.04% (4)
carol - 0.04% (4)
education. - 0.04% (4)
convincing - 0.04% (4)
agreement - 0.04% (4)
begin - 0.04% (4)
also, - 0.04% (4)
seems - 0.04% (4)
reads - 0.04% (4)
“a - 0.04% (4)
genetic - 0.04% (4)
testing - 0.04% (4)
via - 0.04% (4)
offer - 0.04% (4)
eventually - 0.04% (4)
involved - 0.04% (4)
they’re - 0.04% (4)
dress - 0.04% (4)
view - 0.04% (4)
plant - 0.04% (4)
decreased - 0.04% (4)
continuous: - 0.04% (4)
hospital - 0.04% (4)
regular - 0.04% (4)
libertarians - 0.04% (4)
intelligent - 0.04% (4)
apa - 0.04% (4)
present - 0.04% (4)
pass - 0.04% (4)
pharmaceutical - 0.04% (4)
recently - 0.04% (4)
capital - 0.04% (4)
accept - 0.04% (4)
july - 0.04% (4)
negative - 0.04% (4)
mistakes - 0.04% (4)
chose - 0.04% (4)
rss - 0.04% (4)
slate - 0.04% (4)
codex - 0.04% (4)
done - 0.04% (4)
february - 0.04% (4)
march - 0.04% (4)
april - 0.04% (4)
answered - 0.04% (4)
june - 0.04% (4)
august - 0.04% (4)
director - 0.04% (4)
october - 0.04% (4)
picks - 0.04% (4)
ordinary - 0.04% (4)
conservative - 0.04% (4)
december - 0.04% (4)
sun - 0.04% (4)
talking - 0.04% (4)
human - 0.04% (4)
others - 0.04% (4)
again, - 0.04% (4)
jim - 0.04% (4)
experiments - 0.04% (4)
psychiatrist - 0.04% (4)
tiny - 0.04% (4)
sorts - 0.04% (4)
free - 0.04% (4)
name - 0.04% (4)
bay - 0.04% (4)
(eg - 0.04% (4)
always - 0.04% (4)
problem - 0.04% (4)
wouldn’t - 0.04% (4)
save - 0.04% (4)
style - 0.04% (4)
nih - 0.04% (4)
candidate - 0.04% (4)
learning - 0.04% (4)
guess - 0.04% (4)
hit - 0.04% (4)
this. - 0.04% (4)
biased - 0.04% (4)
raise - 0.04% (4)
fast - 0.04% (4)
learned - 0.04% (4)
past - 0.04% (4)
progress - 0.04% (4)
forget - 0.04% (4)
vikram - 0.04% (4)
information - 0.04% (4)
simple - 0.04% (4)
together - 0.04% (4)
us. - 0.04% (4)
academic - 0.04% (4)
99% - 0.04% (4)
extra - 0.04% (4)
produce - 0.04% (4)
principled - 0.04% (4)
policies - 0.04% (4)
complete - 0.04% (4)
medications - 0.04% (4)
active - 0.04% (4)
already - 0.04% (4)
practice - 0.04% (4)
significant - 0.04% (4)
light - 0.04% (4)
break - 0.04% (4)
easy - 0.04% (4)
statistical - 0.04% (4)
that’s - 0.04% (4)
>100 - 0.04% (4)
exist - 0.04% (4)
isis - 0.04% (4)
replication - 0.04% (4)
civil - 0.04% (4)
sounds - 0.04% (4)
made - 0.04% (4)
having - 0.04% (4)
compare - 0.03% (3)
let’s - 0.03% (3)
plus - 0.03% (3)
disprove - 0.03% (3)
such - 0.03% (3)
balance - 0.03% (3)
slight - 0.03% (3)
intuitions - 0.03% (3)
effects - 0.03% (3)
we’ll - 0.03% (3)
warming - 0.03% (3)
weird - 0.03% (3)
global - 0.03% (3)
relatively - 0.03% (3)
usa - 0.03% (3)
doctors - 0.03% (3)
emdrive - 0.03% (3)
none - 0.03% (3)
solstice - 0.03% (3)
area - 0.03% (3)
higher - 0.03% (3)
2016: - 0.03% (3)
leave - 0.03% (3)
space - 0.03% (3)
16. - 0.03% (3)
positions - 0.03% (3)
currently - 0.03% (3)
general - 0.03% (3)
arab - 0.03% (3)
deaths) - 0.03% (3)
kill - 0.03% (3)
large - 0.03% (3)
life - 0.03% (3)
outpatients - 0.03% (3)
site - 0.03% (3)
lesson - 0.03% (3)
focused - 0.03% (3)
worth - 0.03% (3)
software - 0.03% (3)
teach - 0.03% (3)
email - 0.03% (3)
under - 0.03% (3)
analysis - 0.03% (3)
page - 0.03% (3)
talent - 0.03% (3)
i’ll - 0.03% (3)
worker - 0.03% (3)
saved - 0.03% (3)
sham - 0.03% (3)
deal - 0.03% (3)
down. - 0.03% (3)
effort - 0.03% (3)
tax - 0.03% (3)
solution - 0.03% (3)
trust - 0.03% (3)
internal - 0.03% (3)
consistently - 0.03% (3)
subject - 0.03% (3)
decay - 0.03% (3)
repetition - 0.03% (3)
experience - 0.03% (3)
feeling - 0.03% (3)
kinds - 0.03% (3)
change - 0.03% (3)
psychiatrists - 0.03% (3)
months - 0.03% (3)
similar - 0.03% (3)
above - 0.03% (3)
training - 0.03% (3)
final-year - 0.03% (3)
factor - 0.03% (3)
y5: - 0.03% (3)
500 - 0.03% (3)
affect - 0.03% (3)
reminder - 0.03% (3)
hillary - 0.03% (3)
news. - 0.03% (3)
election - 0.03% (3)
fool - 0.03% (3)
moral - 0.03% (3)
loss - 0.03% (3)
wonder - 0.03% (3)
expecting - 0.03% (3)
mitt - 0.03% (3)
line - 0.03% (3)
while - 0.03% (3)
surprise - 0.03% (3)
expectations, - 0.03% (3)
suppose - 0.03% (3)
went - 0.03% (3)
heuristics - 0.03% (3)
statistics - 0.03% (3)
math - 0.03% (3)
positive - 0.03% (3)
natural - 0.03% (3)
million - 0.03% (3)
and, - 0.03% (3)
organ - 0.03% (3)
came - 0.03% (3)
approval - 0.03% (3)
short - 0.03% (3)
friends - 0.03% (3)
politics - 0.03% (3)
here, - 0.03% (3)
concern - 0.03% (3)
too. - 0.03% (3)
adding - 0.03% (3)
tips - 0.03% (3)
also: - 0.03% (3)
whatever. - 0.03% (3)
almost - 0.03% (3)
irvine - 0.03% (3)
fight - 0.03% (3)
called - 0.03% (3)
former - 0.03% (3)
said - 0.03% (3)
hyped - 0.03% (3)
devil. - 0.03% (3)
market - 0.03% (3)
mine - 0.03% (3)
quote - 0.03% (3)
me, - 0.03% (3)
generic - 0.03% (3)
aren’t - 0.03% (3)
proven - 0.03% (3)
makes - 0.03% (3)
create - 0.03% (3)
improve - 0.03% (3)
widely - 0.03% (3)
various - 0.03% (3)
run - 0.03% (3)
political - 0.03% (3)
chosen - 0.03% (3)
little - 0.03% (3)
odds - 0.03% (3)
medicine, - 0.03% (3)
took - 0.03% (3)
industry - 0.03% (3)
continue - 0.03% (3)
wanted - 0.03% (3)
crony - 0.03% (3)
privatizing - 0.03% (3)
supporting - 0.03% (3)
interested - 0.03% (3)
around - 0.03% (3)
using - 0.03% (3)
power - 0.03% (3)
marginal - 0.03% (3)
right, - 0.03% (3)
sets - 0.03% (3)
except - 0.03% (3)
best - 0.03% (3)
vice - 0.03% (3)
bitcoin - 0.03% (3)
rationality - 0.03% (3)
sure. - 0.03% (3)
billion - 0.03% (3)
somebody - 0.03% (3)
believed - 0.03% (3)
gotten - 0.03% (3)
hand - 0.03% (3)
exit - 0.03% (3)
settle - 0.03% (3)
thinking - 0.03% (3)
didn’t - 0.03% (3)
time. - 0.03% (3)
cluster - 0.03% (3)
prior - 0.03% (3)
nobody - 0.03% (3)
given - 0.03% (3)
peace - 0.03% (3)
safety - 0.03% (3)
second, - 0.03% (3)
(in - 0.03% (3)
first, - 0.03% (3)
tom - 0.03% (3)
dweck’s - 0.03% (3)
likely - 0.03% (3)
people. - 0.03% (3)
reporting - 0.03% (3)
comes - 0.03% (3)
want, - 0.03% (3)
moved - 0.03% (3)
imagine - 0.03% (3)
siblings - 0.03% (3)
stupid - 0.03% (3)
sometimes - 0.03% (3)
results, - 0.03% (3)
order - 0.03% (3)
careful - 0.03% (3)
answers - 0.03% (3)
survey. - 0.03% (3)
angeles”, - 0.03% (3)
“los - 0.03% (3)
city - 0.03% (3)
being - 0.03% (3)
mentions - 0.03% (3)
to, - 0.03% (3)
previously - 0.03% (3)
among - 0.03% (3)
seven - 0.03% (3)
since - 0.03% (3)
field. - 0.03% (3)
cast - 0.03% (3)
(for - 0.03% (3)
threads - 0.03% (3)
amazon - 0.03% (3)
compete - 0.03% (3)
toward - 0.03% (3)
archives - 0.03% (3)
threat - 0.03% (3)
scientist - 0.03% (3)
clear - 0.03% (3)
what’s - 0.03% (3)
started - 0.03% (3)
couple - 0.03% (3)
surprising - 0.03% (3)
publicly - 0.02% (2)
existing - 0.02% (2)
rating - 0.02% (2)
percent: - 0.02% (2)
active: - 0.02% (2)
wants - 0.02% (2)
implement - 0.02% (2)
hits - 0.02% (2)
beginning - 0.02% (2)
solstice: - 0.02% (2)
construction - 0.02% (2)
defeat - 0.02% (2)
hundred - 0.02% (2)
record - 0.02% (2)
attempt - 0.02% (2)
faq - 0.02% (2)
hold - 0.02% (2)
national - 0.02% (2)
meeting - 0.02% (2)
lest - 0.02% (2)
worst - 0.02% (2)
second. - 0.02% (2)
hospitalized - 0.02% (2)
proving - 0.02% (2)
antipsychotic - 0.02% (2)
private - 0.02% (2)
toxoplasma - 0.02% (2)
israeli - 0.02% (2)
(>100 - 0.02% (2)
earthquake - 0.02% (2)
(ssc, - 0.02% (2)
him, - 0.02% (2)
shkreli - 0.02% (2)
hike - 0.02% (2)
islands: - 0.02% (2)
(with - 0.02% (2)
(ie - 0.02% (2)
chinese - 0.02% (2)
revolt - 0.02% (2)
17. - 0.02% (2)
itself - 0.02% (2)
gaza - 0.02% (2)
knows - 0.02% (2)
legal - 0.02% (2)
10. - 0.02% (2)
allowed - 0.02% (2)
products - 0.02% (2)
years, - 0.02% (2)
barrel: - 0.02% (2)
serious - 0.02% (2)
america - 0.02% (2)
domain - 0.02% (2)
people: - 0.02% (2)
totally - 0.02% (2)
popular - 0.02% (2)
jones - 0.02% (2)
constantly - 0.02% (2)
(or - 0.02% (2)
away - 0.02% (2)
fewer - 0.02% (2)
remains - 0.02% (2)
elected - 0.02% (2)
canadian - 0.02% (2)
germany - 0.02% (2)
eu: - 0.02% (2)
declare - 0.02% (2)
syria: - 0.02% (2)
france - 0.02% (2)
ssc). - 0.02% (2)
ford, - 0.02% (2)
back: - 0.02% (2)
love - 0.02% (2)
altruism - 0.02% (2)
hair - 0.02% (2)
mere - 0.02% (2)
nothing - 0.02% (2)
miri - 0.02% (2)
common - 0.02% (2)
deputy - 0.02% (2)
seasteading - 0.02% (2)
early - 0.02% (2)
supported - 0.02% (2)
coming, - 0.02% (2)
punch - 0.02% (2)
beeminder - 0.02% (2)
personally - 0.02% (2)
costume - 0.02% (2)
hopes - 0.02% (2)
efficiency - 0.02% (2)
laws - 0.02% (2)
utopia - 0.02% (2)
invent - 0.02% (2)
engineering - 0.02% (2)
signed - 0.02% (2)
donate - 0.02% (2)
play - 0.02% (2)
proposed - 0.02% (2)
writes - 0.02% (2)
balaji - 0.02% (2)
spot - 0.02% (2)
readable - 0.02% (2)
qualia - 0.02% (2)
worthy - 0.02% (2)
giving - 0.02% (2)
organize - 0.02% (2)
evidence-based - 0.02% (2)
provides - 0.02% (2)
career - 0.02% (2)
helping - 0.02% (2)
helps - 0.02% (2)
note - 0.02% (2)
simple, - 0.02% (2)
machine - 0.02% (2)
easily - 0.02% (2)
vase - 0.02% (2)
else - 0.02% (2)
include - 0.02% (2)
north - 0.02% (2)
watch - 0.02% (2)
rich - 0.02% (2)
hardliner - 0.02% (2)
names - 0.02% (2)
candidates - 0.02% (2)
commissioner - 0.02% (2)
boring - 0.02% (2)
gottleib, - 0.02% (2)
dangerous - 0.02% (2)
corrupt - 0.02% (2)
saving - 0.02% (2)
michigan - 0.02% (2)
invest - 0.02% (2)
definitely - 0.02% (2)
saying - 0.02% (2)
capitalists - 0.02% (2)
decides - 0.02% (2)
“ford - 0.02% (2)
press. - 0.02% (2)
credit - 0.02% (2)
united - 0.02% (2)
stay - 0.02% (2)
(@realdonaldtrump) - 0.02% (2)
- 0.02% (2)
convenient - 0.02% (2)
attribute - 0.02% (2)
roll - 0.02% (2)
batman - 0.02% (2)
421 - 0.02% (2)
weight - 0.02% (2)
shop - 0.02% (2)
subsidies - 0.02% (2)
increased - 0.02% (2)
competition - 0.02% (2)
daily - 0.02% (2)
building - 0.02% (2)
house - 0.02% (2)
rationalist - 0.02% (2)
works. - 0.02% (2)
social - 0.02% (2)
uh, - 0.02% (2)
silicon - 0.02% (2)
factory - 0.02% (2)
work. - 0.02% (2)
message - 0.02% (2)
send - 0.02% (2)
prepared - 0.02% (2)
himself - 0.02% (2)
sense - 0.02% (2)
worse, - 0.02% (2)
keeping - 0.02% (2)
computer - 0.02% (2)
victories - 0.02% (2)
to. - 0.02% (2)
profits - 0.02% (2)
favors - 0.02% (2)
ultimate - 0.02% (2)
valley - 0.02% (2)
error - 0.02% (2)
federal - 0.02% (2)
deal, - 0.02% (2)
launch - 0.02% (2)
“the - 0.02% (2)
carrier - 0.02% (2)
beat - 0.02% (2)
workers - 0.02% (2)
indiana - 0.02% (2)
thing? - 0.02% (2)
looking - 0.02% (2)
warning - 0.02% (2)
crazy - 0.02% (2)
unusually - 0.02% (2)
lots - 0.02% (2)
scored - 0.02% (2)
throwing - 0.02% (2)
patreon. - 0.02% (2)
linked - 0.02% (2)
no. - 0.02% (2)
done? - 0.02% (2)
ceiling - 0.02% (2)
someone - 0.02% (2)
speaking - 0.02% (2)
76% - 0.02% (2)
posting - 0.02% (2)
are. - 0.02% (2)
residencies - 0.02% (2)
nature - 0.02% (2)
uci - 0.02% (2)
averages - 0.02% (2)
meetup - 0.02% (2)
following - 0.02% (2)
week. - 0.02% (2)
unsong - 0.02% (2)
relevant - 0.02% (2)
mind, - 0.02% (2)
theory - 0.02% (2)
explosive - 0.02% (2)
proven? - 0.02% (2)
caring - 0.02% (2)
questions, - 0.02% (2)
science. - 0.02% (2)
unfair - 0.02% (2)
decaying - 0.02% (2)
them, - 0.02% (2)
naturally - 0.02% (2)
accepted - 0.02% (2)
forgetting - 0.02% (2)
spaced - 0.02% (2)
reach - 0.02% (2)
intelligence - 0.02% (2)
settled - 0.02% (2)
empirically - 0.02% (2)
particular - 0.02% (2)
trees - 0.02% (2)
applied - 0.02% (2)
days - 0.02% (2)
knowledge, - 0.02% (2)
disagreement - 0.02% (2)
ot67: - 0.02% (2)
seeing - 0.02% (2)
lectures - 0.02% (2)
15, - 0.02% (2)
bi-weekly - 0.02% (2)
treating - 0.02% (2)
visible - 0.02% (2)
thread. - 0.02% (2)
hidden - 0.02% (2)
teaching - 0.02% (2)
finish - 0.02% (2)
shaky - 0.02% (2)
surgeons, - 0.02% (2)
mturk - 0.02% (2)
believing - 0.02% (2)
average, - 0.02% (2)
sunk - 0.02% (2)
study - 0.02% (2)
looked - 0.02% (2)
lot. - 0.02% (2)
crisis - 0.02% (2)
says - 0.02% (2)
irregularities - 0.02% (2)
between - 0.02% (2)
anybody - 0.02% (2)
claiming - 0.02% (2)
cite - 0.02% (2)
(98% - 0.02% (2)
explanation - 0.02% (2)
(true!), - 0.02% (2)
honest - 0.02% (2)
neither - 0.02% (2)
shame - 0.02% (2)
emphasize - 0.02% (2)
tells - 0.02% (2)
up. - 0.02% (2)
studies, - 0.02% (2)
meta-analysis - 0.02% (2)
example, - 0.02% (2)
psychologist - 0.02% (2)
bates - 0.02% (2)
replications - 0.02% (2)
effect, - 0.02% (2)
ahead - 0.02% (2)
fifth-year - 0.02% (2)
seeming - 0.02% (2)
fourth-year - 0.02% (2)
second-year - 0.02% (2)
well. - 0.02% (2)
first-year - 0.02% (2)
becomes - 0.02% (2)
talked - 0.02% (2)
choose - 0.02% (2)
see, - 0.02% (2)
suspicious - 0.02% (2)
trick, - 0.02% (2)
up, - 0.02% (2)
haven’t - 0.02% (2)
recently. - 0.02% (2)
technique - 0.02% (2)
training, - 0.02% (2)
priming - 0.02% (2)
stereotype - 0.02% (2)
good. - 0.02% (2)
example) - 0.02% (2)
apart - 0.02% (2)
experimental - 0.02% (2)
spends - 0.02% (2)
objections - 0.02% (2)
there, - 0.02% (2)
again. - 0.02% (2)
doubtful - 0.02% (2)
confirm - 0.02% (2)
access - 0.02% (2)
hanne - 0.02% (2)
figure - 0.02% (2)
crawford - 0.02% (2)
harris - 0.02% (2)
stuck - 0.02% (2)
charitable - 0.02% (2)
republican - 0.02% (2)
reasons - 0.02% (2)
romney’s - 0.02% (2)
pledge - 0.02% (2)
polls, - 0.02% (2)
obama’s - 0.02% (2)
skewed” - 0.02% (2)
address - 0.02% (2)
minorities - 0.02% (2)
senior - 0.02% (2)
contenders - 0.02% (2)
loss. - 0.02% (2)
ideas - 0.02% (2)
pays - 0.02% (2)
ii. - 0.02% (2)
twice - 0.02% (2)
inflated - 0.02% (2)
observing - 0.02% (2)
25% - 0.02% (2)
supports - 0.02% (2)
statistician - 0.02% (2)
promoting - 0.02% (2)
raising - 0.02% (2)
lose, - 0.02% (2)
minority - 0.02% (2)
time, - 0.02% (2)
comeuppance - 0.02% (2)
cases - 0.02% (2)
baseball - 0.02% (2)
decided - 0.02% (2)
moneyball - 0.02% (2)
indication - 0.02% (2)
boots - 0.02% (2)
grizzled - 0.02% (2)
scenario - 0.02% (2)
across - 0.02% (2)
management - 0.02% (2)
ineffective - 0.02% (2)
decade - 0.02% (2)
revolutionary - 0.02% (2)
potential - 0.02% (2)
well, - 0.02% (2)
arrogant - 0.02% (2)
parable - 0.02% (2)
bold - 0.02% (2)
index - 0.02% (2)
hasn’t - 0.02% (2)
shouldn’t - 0.02% (2)
election, - 0.02% (2)
2016. - 0.02% (2)
direction - 0.02% (2)
narrative - 0.02% (2)
phenomenon - 0.02% (2)
go, - 0.02% (2)
greater - 0.02% (2)
talents - 0.02% (2)
reinforced - 0.02% (2)
answer. - 0.02% (2)
oppose - 0.02% (2)
unsure - 0.02% (2)
(c) - 0.02% (2)
(which - 0.02% (2)
everything - 0.02% (2)
turns - 0.02% (2)
mostly - 0.02% (2)
antidepressant - 0.02% (2)
matters - 0.02% (2)
reminded - 0.02% (2)
front - 0.02% (2)
privatization - 0.02% (2)
reminders - 0.02% (2)
mature - 0.02% (2)
whereas - 0.02% (2)
asking - 0.02% (2)
six - 0.02% (2)
others, - 0.02% (2)
ways. - 0.02% (2)
sripada - 0.02% (2)
differences - 0.02% (2)
completely - 0.02% (2)
qualified - 0.02% (2)
five - 0.02% (2)
consensus - 0.02% (2)
gave - 0.02% (2)
accurately - 0.02% (2)
brain - 0.02% (2)
article, - 0.02% (2)
towards - 0.02% (2)
followup - 0.02% (2)
quick - 0.02% (2)
future - 0.02% (2)
interpreting - 0.02% (2)
“it’s - 0.02% (2)
confidence - 0.02% (2)
consecutive - 0.02% (2)
opinion - 0.02% (2)
home - 0.02% (2)
thiel - 0.02% (2)
eras, - 0.02% (2)
awkward - 0.02% (2)
starting - 0.02% (2)
“economists - 0.02% (2)
seventh - 0.02% (2)
education” - 0.02% (2)
vouchers. - 0.02% (2)
wasn’t - 0.02% (2)
resolutions - 0.02% (2)
control - 0.02% (2)
noah - 0.02% (2)
“ai - 0.02% (2)
surprised - 0.02% (2)
week, - 0.02% (2)
bet, - 0.02% (2)
disagreed - 0.02% (2)
exams - 0.02% (2)
perform - 0.02% (2)
chances - 0.02% (2)
of the - 0.49% (48)
at the - 0.38% (38)
in the - 0.31% (31)
i will - 0.25% (25)
that the - 0.2% (20)
this is - 0.19% (19)
at least - 0.19% (19)
and the - 0.19% (19)
going to - 0.17% (17)
that a - 0.17% (17)
will not - 0.16% (16)
growth mindset - 0.16% (16)
to the - 0.16% (16)
on the - 0.16% (16)
this year - 0.15% (15)
the article - 0.15% (15)
the same - 0.14% (14)
this year: - 0.13% (13)
end of - 0.12% (12)
that i - 0.12% (12)
of thing - 0.11% (11)
on january - 0.11% (11)
this:twitterfacebook posted - 0.1% (10)
the end - 0.1% (10)
in uncategorized - 0.1% (10)
| tagged - 0.1% (10)
with the - 0.1% (10)
2017 by - 0.1% (10)
scott alexander - 0.1% (10)
share this:twitterfacebook - 0.1% (10)
by scott - 0.1% (10)
number of - 0.1% (10)
i think - 0.1% (10)
uncategorized | - 0.1% (10)
posted in - 0.1% (10)
posted on - 0.1% (10)
there’s a - 0.09% (9)
one of - 0.09% (9)
the fda - 0.09% (9)
is the - 0.09% (9)
have been - 0.09% (9)
is that - 0.09% (9)
would be - 0.09% (9)
i don’t - 0.09% (9)
about the - 0.09% (9)
of 2017: - 0.09% (9)
with a - 0.09% (9)
if the - 0.08% (8)
than a - 0.08% (8)
lot of - 0.08% (8)
of them - 0.08% (8)
kind of - 0.08% (8)
the us - 0.07% (7)
do this - 0.07% (7)
i won’t - 0.07% (7)
some of - 0.07% (7)
think i - 0.07% (7)
for the - 0.07% (7)
if you - 0.07% (7)
i’m not - 0.07% (7)
i would - 0.07% (7)
he can - 0.07% (7)
thing that - 0.07% (7)
by the - 0.07% (7)
and no - 0.06% (6)
the time - 0.06% (6)
and then - 0.06% (6)
of this - 0.06% (6)
here a - 0.06% (6)
to get - 0.06% (6)
not to - 0.06% (6)
those that - 0.06% (6)
of things - 0.06% (6)
live in - 0.06% (6)
least one - 0.06% (6)
because i - 0.06% (6)
no major - 0.06% (6)
2017: 60% - 0.06% (6)
me the - 0.06% (6)
like this - 0.06% (6)
about how - 0.06% (6)
not be - 0.06% (6)
that it - 0.06% (6)
that we - 0.06% (6)
the sort - 0.06% (6)
of their - 0.05% (5)
more than - 0.05% (5)
half of - 0.05% (5)
people are - 0.05% (5)
for an - 0.05% (5)
have to - 0.05% (5)
at this - 0.05% (5)
of these - 0.05% (5)
not sure - 0.05% (5)
– and - 0.05% (5)
need to - 0.05% (5)
over the - 0.05% (5)
people to - 0.05% (5)
for at - 0.05% (5)
year: 90% - 0.05% (5)
to take - 0.05% (5)
to find - 0.05% (5)
open thread - 0.05% (5)
the first - 0.05% (5)
does not - 0.05% (5)
think it’s - 0.05% (5)
least two - 0.05% (5)
from the - 0.05% (5)
you can - 0.05% (5)
it would - 0.05% (5)
amount of - 0.05% (5)
here are - 0.05% (5)
most of - 0.05% (5)
can do - 0.05% (5)
i could - 0.05% (5)
chance that - 0.05% (5)
or what - 0.04% (4)
plan to - 0.04% (4)
but not - 0.04% (4)
any of - 0.04% (4)
is going - 0.04% (4)
will get - 0.04% (4)
my own - 0.04% (4)
will know - 0.04% (4)
the amount - 0.04% (4)
at all - 0.04% (4)
there are - 0.04% (4)
thanks to - 0.04% (4)
jobs in - 0.04% (4)
people might - 0.04% (4)
where the - 0.04% (4)
of all - 0.04% (4)
might it - 0.04% (4)
to replicate - 0.04% (4)
talking about - 0.04% (4)
know more - 0.04% (4)
of studies - 0.04% (4)
to make - 0.04% (4)
every year - 0.04% (4)
which we - 0.04% (4)
the one - 0.04% (4)
than i - 0.04% (4)
two weeks - 0.04% (4)
the last - 0.04% (4)
won’t live - 0.04% (4)
that they - 0.04% (4)
you learn - 0.04% (4)
has to - 0.04% (4)
form a - 0.04% (4)
weeks continuous: - 0.04% (4)
sort of - 0.04% (4)
carol dweck - 0.04% (4)
about an - 0.04% (4)
lower than - 0.04% (4)
ssc survey - 0.04% (4)
out to - 0.04% (4)
find a - 0.04% (4)
not get - 0.04% (4)
tried to - 0.04% (4)
exactly the - 0.04% (4)
look at - 0.04% (4)
the entire - 0.04% (4)
growth mindset. - 0.04% (4)
other people - 0.04% (4)
year: 50% - 0.04% (4)
you want - 0.04% (4)
then a - 0.04% (4)
has been - 0.04% (4)
part of - 0.04% (4)
learned the - 0.04% (4)
able to - 0.04% (4)
he was - 0.04% (4)
i worry - 0.04% (4)
it was - 0.04% (4)
make the - 0.04% (4)
we should - 0.04% (4)
might be - 0.04% (4)
the public - 0.04% (4)
only a - 0.04% (4)
talk about - 0.04% (4)
and not - 0.04% (4)
civil war - 0.04% (4)
and he - 0.04% (4)
year of - 0.04% (4)
instead of - 0.03% (3)
remain a - 0.03% (3)
a major - 0.03% (3)
something that - 0.03% (3)
get at - 0.03% (3)
questions right - 0.03% (3)
not have - 0.03% (3)
in this - 0.03% (3)
some people - 0.03% (3)
i tried - 0.03% (3)
them to - 0.03% (3)
failed to - 0.03% (3)
significant number - 0.03% (3)
but we - 0.03% (3)
the year - 0.03% (3)
everyone who - 0.03% (3)
good a - 0.03% (3)
the bay - 0.03% (3)
the middle - 0.03% (3)
year: 80% - 0.03% (3)
will remain - 0.03% (3)
like the - 0.03% (3)
the job - 0.03% (3)
a pact - 0.03% (3)
it can - 0.03% (3)
the devil. - 0.03% (3)
pact with - 0.03% (3)
over their - 0.03% (3)
be really - 0.03% (3)
that have - 0.03% (3)
people in - 0.03% (3)
the evidence - 0.03% (3)
time i - 0.03% (3)
a significant - 0.03% (3)
my outpatients - 0.03% (3)
to her - 0.03% (3)
couple of - 0.03% (3)
up with - 0.03% (3)
2017: 70% - 0.03% (3)
based on - 0.03% (3)
2017: 90% - 0.03% (3)
mindset and - 0.03% (3)
none of - 0.03% (3)
to leave - 0.03% (3)
fail to - 0.03% (3)
during the - 0.03% (3)
in euro - 0.03% (3)
outpatients to - 0.03% (3)
the 2016 - 0.03% (3)
if there - 0.03% (3)
will end - 0.03% (3)
middle east - 0.03% (3)
first half - 0.03% (3)
in 2017: - 0.03% (3)
the survey - 0.03% (3)
spend a - 0.03% (3)
and other - 0.03% (3)
europe has - 0.03% (3)
to spend - 0.03% (3)
the next - 0.03% (3)
but there’s - 0.03% (3)
that are - 0.03% (3)
you could - 0.03% (3)
approved by - 0.03% (3)
want to - 0.03% (3)
a very - 0.03% (3)
because the - 0.03% (3)
principled intelligent - 0.03% (3)
that an - 0.03% (3)
you see - 0.03% (3)
the only - 0.03% (3)
is all - 0.03% (3)
it just - 0.03% (3)
to show - 0.03% (3)
because it’s - 0.03% (3)
three years - 0.03% (3)
that he - 0.03% (3)
can get - 0.03% (3)
and every - 0.03% (3)
think this - 0.03% (3)
same as - 0.03% (3)
b, and - 0.03% (3)
it’s going - 0.03% (3)
the price - 0.03% (3)
a director - 0.03% (3)
than the - 0.03% (3)
taking the - 0.03% (3)
interested in - 0.03% (3)
out of - 0.03% (3)
the world - 0.03% (3)
los angeles”, - 0.03% (3)
“los angeles - 0.03% (3)
not yet - 0.03% (3)
worse than - 0.03% (3)
years or - 0.03% (3)
of patient - 0.03% (3)
could be - 0.03% (3)
the unit - 0.03% (3)
or another - 0.03% (3)
in model - 0.03% (3)
this blog - 0.03% (3)
to everyone - 0.03% (3)
they will - 0.03% (3)
degree to - 0.03% (3)
sure i - 0.03% (3)
worry that - 0.03% (3)
they have - 0.03% (3)
their own - 0.03% (3)
the other - 0.03% (3)
researchers are - 0.03% (3)
his administration - 0.03% (3)
don’t think - 0.03% (3)
that this - 0.03% (3)
that you - 0.03% (3)
an average - 0.03% (3)
important to - 0.03% (3)
with an - 0.03% (3)
the fact - 0.03% (3)
their first - 0.03% (3)
to believe - 0.03% (3)
you think - 0.03% (3)
of his - 0.03% (3)
raise my - 0.03% (3)
you get - 0.03% (3)
the obvious - 0.03% (3)
economists on - 0.03% (3)
this kind - 0.03% (3)
do you - 0.03% (3)
do something - 0.03% (3)
be more - 0.03% (3)
don’t know - 0.03% (3)
most people - 0.03% (3)
me about - 0.03% (3)
it and - 0.03% (3)
they were - 0.03% (3)
all the - 0.03% (3)
residents over - 0.03% (3)
most economists - 0.03% (3)
story of - 0.03% (3)
the most - 0.03% (3)
them. i - 0.03% (3)
studies and - 0.03% (3)
– the - 0.03% (3)
just by - 0.03% (3)
same number - 0.03% (3)
internal medicine - 0.03% (3)
up the - 0.03% (3)
and they - 0.03% (3)
believed that - 0.03% (3)
drugs that - 0.03% (3)
be that - 0.03% (3)
the high - 0.03% (3)
in israel - 0.02% (2)
“it’s always - 0.02% (2)
the way - 0.02% (2)
the future - 0.02% (2)
are biased - 0.02% (2)
rationality | - 0.02% (2)
of every - 0.02% (2)
not in - 0.02% (2)
for it - 0.02% (2)
cast lead - 0.02% (2)
there was - 0.02% (2)
moral parable - 0.02% (2)
2016 campaign - 0.02% (2)
the grizzled - 0.02% (2)
trust in - 0.02% (2)
evidence against - 0.02% (2)
lead style - 0.02% (2)
will never - 0.02% (2)
data point - 0.02% (2)
i feel - 0.02% (2)
anyone who - 0.02% (2)
year, i - 0.02% (2)
get in - 0.02% (2)
enough to - 0.02% (2)
fail at - 0.02% (2)
every year, - 0.02% (2)
decreased minority - 0.02% (2)
lose, but - 0.02% (2)
involved in - 0.02% (2)
major war - 0.02% (2)
adding up - 0.02% (2)
minority turnout - 0.02% (2)
that they’re - 0.02% (2)
thinking about - 0.02% (2)
would fail - 0.02% (2)
time they - 0.02% (2)
president of - 0.02% (2)
inflated expectations, - 0.02% (2)
model c, - 0.02% (2)
biased towards - 0.02% (2)
he would - 0.02% (2)
10% of - 0.02% (2)
obvious lesson - 0.02% (2)
the polls - 0.02% (2)
the story - 0.02% (2)
because he - 0.02% (2)
strong heuristic - 0.02% (2)
comments predictions - 0.02% (2)
year: 60% - 0.02% (2)
trump will - 0.02% (2)
federal government - 0.02% (2)
back down. - 0.02% (2)
and get - 0.02% (2)
price of - 0.02% (2)
the us. - 0.02% (2)
stay in - 0.02% (2)
that trump - 0.02% (2)
you’re a - 0.02% (2)
fact that - 0.02% (2)
be prepared - 0.02% (2)
prepared for - 0.02% (2)
subsidies or - 0.02% (2)
but nobody - 0.02% (2)
or you - 0.02% (2)
jobs saved - 0.02% (2)
the total - 0.02% (2)
trump convinced - 0.02% (2)
really convincing - 0.02% (2)
which look - 0.02% (2)
in for - 0.02% (2)
on these - 0.02% (2)
companies will - 0.02% (2)
believe this - 0.02% (2)
the government - 0.02% (2)
or whatever - 0.02% (2)
to mexico - 0.02% (2)
much more - 0.02% (2)
money to - 0.02% (2)
to dress - 0.02% (2)
the company - 0.02% (2)
whatever. also: - 0.02% (2)
we don’t - 0.02% (2)
can find - 0.02% (2)
effective altruism - 0.02% (2)
true but - 0.02% (2)
explosive if - 0.02% (2)
which are - 0.02% (2)
publish claims - 0.02% (2)
should buzzfeed - 0.02% (2)
“economists on - 0.02% (2)
followup to - 0.02% (2)
new health - 0.02% (2)
marginal revolution - 0.02% (2)
open | - 0.02% (2)
random questions, - 0.02% (2)
costume and - 0.02% (2)
want, ask - 0.02% (2)
anything you - 0.02% (2)
post about - 0.02% (2)
days here. - 0.02% (2)
every few - 0.02% (2)
hidden threads - 0.02% (2)
open thread. - 0.02% (2)
bi-weekly visible - 0.02% (2)
alexander this - 0.02% (2)
1, 2017 - 0.02% (2)
will keep - 0.02% (2)
him for - 0.02% (2)
personally punch - 0.02% (2)
but because - 0.02% (2)
deal, and - 0.02% (2)
major civil - 0.02% (2)
10% this - 0.02% (2)
solstice: 60% - 0.02% (2)
next year: - 0.02% (2)
will attend - 0.02% (2)
by end - 0.02% (2)
less wrong - 0.02% (2)
ssc post - 0.02% (2)
2016: 60% - 0.02% (2)
than in - 0.02% (2)
publicly and - 0.02% (2)
in 2016: - 0.02% (2)
of hillary - 0.02% (2)
trump administration - 0.02% (2)
fall > - 0.02% (2)
will take - 0.02% (2)
not fall - 0.02% (2)
barrel: 60% - 0.02% (2)
higher than - 0.02% (2)
declare plan - 0.02% (2)
major earthquake - 0.02% (2)
deaths) in - 0.02% (2)
earthquake (>100 - 0.02% (2)
convinced emdrive - 0.02% (2)
not become - 0.02% (2)
become convinced - 0.02% (2)
plan for - 0.02% (2)
tiny stupid - 0.02% (2)
war in - 0.02% (2)
the new - 0.02% (2)
it for - 0.02% (2)
trump is - 0.02% (2)
build plant - 0.02% (2)
j. trump - 0.02% (2)
— donald - 0.02% (2)
day on - 0.02% (2)
notice that - 0.02% (2)
you need - 0.02% (2)
to him - 0.02% (2)
why not - 0.02% (2)
you’re doing - 0.02% (2)
that can - 0.02% (2)
without any - 0.02% (2)
plant in - 0.02% (2)
to build - 0.02% (2)
decides not - 0.02% (2)
“ford decides - 0.02% (2)
will be - 0.02% (2)
get them - 0.02% (2)
them are - 0.02% (2)
to stay - 0.02% (2)
companies do - 0.02% (2)
trump (@realdonaldtrump) - 0.02% (2)
donald j. - 0.02% (2)
january 3, - 0.02% (2)
i weight - 0.02% (2)
continuous: 70% - 0.02% (2)
my current - 0.02% (2)
when i - 0.02% (2)
2017: 50% - 0.02% (2)
research paper - 0.02% (2)
to meet - 0.02% (2)
or three - 0.02% (2)
effects of - 0.02% (2)
but in - 0.02% (2)
opinion of - 0.02% (2)
to raise - 0.02% (2)
do more - 0.02% (2)
know what - 0.02% (2)
standard of - 0.02% (2)
but one - 0.02% (2)
supports this - 0.02% (2)
i guess - 0.02% (2)
a widely - 0.02% (2)
interest in - 0.02% (2)
a strong - 0.02% (2)
the current - 0.02% (2)
for another - 0.02% (2)
full of - 0.02% (2)
is probably - 0.02% (2)
politics | - 0.02% (2)
that kind - 0.02% (2)
scenario is - 0.02% (2)
we use - 0.02% (2)
with drugs - 0.02% (2)
out what - 0.02% (2)
they don’t - 0.02% (2)
into the - 0.02% (2)
to bring - 0.02% (2)
would never - 0.02% (2)
crony capitalists - 0.02% (2)
it sounds - 0.02% (2)
other companies - 0.02% (2)
companies can - 0.02% (2)
that thing - 0.02% (2)
and i’m - 0.02% (2)
another followup - 0.02% (2)
date with - 0.02% (2)
article didn’t - 0.02% (2)
visible open - 0.02% (2)
the bi-weekly - 0.02% (2)
comment core - 0.02% (2)
ten dollars - 0.02% (2)
disagreed with - 0.02% (2)
gotten to - 0.02% (2)
can’t be - 0.02% (2)
might think - 0.02% (2)
i should - 0.02% (2)
to test - 0.02% (2)
article was - 0.02% (2)
not the - 0.02% (2)
about this, - 0.02% (2)
the bet, - 0.02% (2)
that most - 0.02% (2)
to “economists - 0.02% (2)
make sure - 0.02% (2)
on education” - 0.02% (2)
school vouchers. - 0.02% (2)
it, and - 0.02% (2)
i thought - 0.02% (2)
to continue - 0.02% (2)
the experiment - 0.02% (2)
we would - 0.02% (2)
questions right, - 0.02% (2)
ask the - 0.02% (2)
to this - 0.02% (2)
thought the - 0.02% (2)
to give - 0.02% (2)
the easy - 0.02% (2)
of those - 0.02% (2)
stop having - 0.02% (2)
having that - 0.02% (2)
are hidden - 0.02% (2)
and which - 0.02% (2)
and srinivasan - 0.02% (2)
one is - 0.02% (2)
won’t be - 0.02% (2)
for fda - 0.02% (2)
which is - 0.02% (2)
get to - 0.02% (2)
want a - 0.02% (2)
whether you - 0.02% (2)
– or - 0.02% (2)
the rest - 0.02% (2)
the federal - 0.02% (2)
silicon valley - 0.02% (2)
genetic testing - 0.02% (2)
and, uh, - 0.02% (2)
to create - 0.02% (2)
at one - 0.02% (2)
fda commissioner - 0.02% (2)
candidates for - 0.02% (2)
conservative hardliner - 0.02% (2)
an ordinary - 0.02% (2)
ordinary conservative - 0.02% (2)
so far - 0.02% (2)
health picks - 0.02% (2)
watch new - 0.02% (2)
who answered - 0.02% (2)
the question - 0.02% (2)
you should - 0.02% (2)
this and - 0.02% (2)
2017 posted - 0.02% (2)
slate star - 0.02% (2)
seem to - 0.02% (2)
try to - 0.02% (2)
company is - 0.02% (2)
for all - 0.02% (2)
every other - 0.02% (2)
compete with - 0.02% (2)
away with - 0.02% (2)
the market - 0.02% (2)
companies in - 0.02% (2)
generic drug - 0.02% (2)
company that - 0.02% (2)
to produce - 0.02% (2)
even though - 0.02% (2)
take it - 0.02% (2)
toxoplasma drug - 0.02% (2)
shkreli can - 0.02% (2)
(ssc, more - 0.02% (2)
we know - 0.02% (2)
any medication - 0.02% (2)
o’neill or - 0.02% (2)
or srinivasan - 0.02% (2)
to implement - 0.02% (2)
pharmaceutical industry - 0.02% (2)
for one - 0.02% (2)
in medicine, - 0.02% (2)
intelligent libertarians - 0.02% (2)
like o’neill - 0.02% (2)
first world - 0.02% (2)
in europe - 0.02% (2)
dollars getting - 0.02% (2)
it approved - 0.02% (2)
billion or - 0.02% (2)
so dollars - 0.02% (2)
getting it - 0.02% (2)
the best - 0.02% (2)
thread. there - 0.02% (2)
threads every - 0.02% (2)
test scores - 0.02% (2)
let’s talk - 0.02% (2)
this: y1 - 0.02% (2)
year, and - 0.02% (2)
learn the - 0.02% (2)
it looks - 0.02% (2)
next time - 0.02% (2)
of education - 0.02% (2)
how they - 0.02% (2)
mean of - 0.02% (2)
for psychiatry - 0.02% (2)
medicine residents - 0.02% (2)
of training, - 0.02% (2)
first year - 0.02% (2)
in their - 0.02% (2)
that is, - 0.02% (2)
is, we - 0.02% (2)
people probably - 0.02% (2)
we need - 0.02% (2)
bring peace - 0.02% (2)
confirm it - 0.02% (2)
be some - 0.02% (2)
mindset. i - 0.02% (2)
to say - 0.02% (2)
this isn’t - 0.02% (2)
sunk cost - 0.02% (2)
negative results - 0.02% (2)
of recent - 0.02% (2)
could do - 0.02% (2)
slight statistical - 0.02% (2)
in some - 0.02% (2)
statistical irregularities - 0.02% (2)
residency program - 0.02% (2)
very much - 0.02% (2)
it means - 0.02% (2)
of your - 0.02% (2)
does this - 0.02% (2)
knowledge you’re - 0.02% (2)
each day - 0.02% (2)
matters a - 0.02% (2)
and acts - 0.02% (2)
acts as - 0.02% (2)
and maybe - 0.02% (2)
a lot. - 0.02% (2)
i remember - 0.02% (2)
think about - 0.02% (2)
whereas other - 0.02% (2)
others, and - 0.02% (2)
taking a - 0.02% (2)
and am - 0.02% (2)
for years - 0.02% (2)
of questions - 0.02% (2)
of patients - 0.02% (2)
better than - 0.02% (2)
final-year residents - 0.02% (2)
of how - 0.02% (2)
50 points - 0.02% (2)
of hours - 0.02% (2)
learn by - 0.02% (2)
you’re done? - 0.02% (2)
a certain - 0.02% (2)
be the - 0.02% (2)
the sorts - 0.02% (2)
by seeing - 0.02% (2)
have a - 0.02% (2)
intelligence and - 0.02% (2)
spaced repetition - 0.02% (2)
then i - 0.02% (2)
(98% of - 0.02% (2)
few days - 0.02% (2)
tagged open - 0.02% (2)
reason to - 0.02% (2)
have every - 0.02% (2)
of mind, - 0.02% (2)
experiments have - 0.02% (2)
a high - 0.02% (2)
suspicious of - 0.02% (2)
mindset has - 0.02% (2)
wouldn’t have - 0.02% (2)
talked to - 0.02% (2)
yet proven? - 0.02% (2)
if true - 0.02% (2)
are explosive - 0.02% (2)
claims which - 0.02% (2)
buzzfeed publish - 0.02% (2)
i just - 0.02% (2)
stereotype threat - 0.02% (2)
two or - 0.02% (2)
unusually short - 0.02% (2)
i’m going - 0.02% (2)
there’s no - 0.02% (2)
linked to - 0.02% (2)
throwing a - 0.02% (2)
the ones - 0.02% (2)
lots of - 0.02% (2)
also: 1. - 0.02% (2)
questions, whatever. - 0.02% (2)
ask random - 0.02% (2)
you want, - 0.02% (2)
about anything - 0.02% (2)
here. post - 0.02% (2)
dweck has - 0.02% (2)
making a - 0.02% (2)
means 2% - 0.02% (2)
results that - 0.02% (2)
it (98% - 0.02% (2)
that people - 0.02% (2)
really hyped - 0.02% (2)
my concern - 0.02% (2)
when you - 0.02% (2)
this meta-analysis - 0.02% (2)
results. the - 0.02% (2)
and see - 0.02% (2)
entire field - 0.02% (2)
we have - 0.02% (2)
will produce - 0.02% (2)
studies that - 0.02% (2)
think any - 0.02% (2)
for example, - 0.02% (2)
very strong - 0.02% (2)
they did - 0.02% (2)
looked at - 0.02% (2)
a tiny - 0.02% (2)
peace to - 0.02% (2)
objections there - 0.02% (2)
how many - 0.02% (2)
will always - 0.02% (2)
total number - 0.02% (2)
three children - 0.02% (2)
studies like - 0.02% (2)
get that - 0.02% (2)
as half - 0.02% (2)
does some - 0.02% (2)
pretty much - 0.02% (2)
are so - 0.02% (2)
the paper - 0.02% (2)
like an - 0.02% (2)
posted in uncategorized - 0.1% (10)
uncategorized | tagged - 0.1% (10)
share this:twitterfacebook posted - 0.1% (10)
in uncategorized | - 0.1% (10)
this:twitterfacebook posted in - 0.1% (10)
by scott alexander - 0.1% (10)
posted on january - 0.1% (10)
2017 by scott - 0.1% (10)
the end of - 0.09% (9)
at the end - 0.07% (7)
at least one - 0.06% (6)
i will not - 0.06% (6)
end of 2017: - 0.06% (6)
some of the - 0.05% (5)
i’m not sure - 0.05% (5)
this is the - 0.05% (5)
at least two - 0.05% (5)
i won’t live - 0.04% (4)
for at least - 0.04% (4)
of the time - 0.04% (4)
will know more - 0.04% (4)
will not be - 0.04% (4)
least two weeks - 0.04% (4)
one of the - 0.04% (4)
jobs in the - 0.04% (4)
won’t live in - 0.04% (4)
two weeks continuous: - 0.04% (4)
i think it’s - 0.04% (4)
is going to - 0.04% (4)
more than a - 0.03% (3)
not sure i - 0.03% (3)
most of the - 0.03% (3)
in my own - 0.03% (3)
about the same - 0.03% (3)
of 2017: 60% - 0.03% (3)
degree to which - 0.03% (3)
a pact with - 0.03% (3)
sorts of things - 0.03% (3)
with the devil. - 0.03% (3)
pact with the - 0.03% (3)
of thing that - 0.03% (3)
of 2017: 90% - 0.03% (3)
the first half - 0.03% (3)
my outpatients to - 0.03% (3)
growth mindset and - 0.03% (3)
significant number of - 0.03% (3)
of this year: - 0.03% (3)
a significant number - 0.03% (3)
i tried to - 0.03% (3)
i think this - 0.03% (3)
it be that - 0.03% (3)
this year: 50% - 0.03% (3)
i worry that - 0.03% (3)
this year: 80% - 0.03% (3)
think this is - 0.03% (3)
thanks to everyone - 0.03% (3)
this kind of - 0.03% (3)
this is a - 0.03% (3)
sort of thing - 0.03% (3)
i don’t know - 0.03% (3)
the article doesn’t - 0.03% (3)
that the article - 0.03% (3)
but there’s a - 0.03% (3)
the time the - 0.03% (3)
to leave eu: - 0.02% (2)
not declare plan - 0.02% (2)
the year higher - 0.02% (2)
you want, ask - 0.02% (2)
end the year - 0.02% (2)
declare plan to - 0.02% (2)
a barrel: 60% - 0.02% (2)
random questions, whatever. - 0.02% (2)
major earthquake (>100 - 0.02% (2)
not fall > - 0.02% (2)
10% this year: - 0.02% (2)
“ford decides not - 0.02% (2)
thing of things - 0.02% (2)
not become convinced - 0.02% (2)
tiny stupid islands: - 0.02% (2)
anyone who learned - 0.02% (2)
the obvious lesson - 0.02% (2)
not yet proven? - 0.02% (2)
not get in - 0.02% (2)
7. no major - 0.02% (2)
this year: 60% - 0.02% (2)
if true but - 0.02% (2)
those that are - 0.02% (2)
over tiny stupid - 0.02% (2)
which are explosive - 0.02% (2)
buzzfeed publish claims - 0.02% (2)
become convinced emdrive - 0.02% (2)
followup to “economists - 0.02% (2)
post about anything - 0.02% (2)
fall > 10% - 0.02% (2)
than in 2016: - 0.02% (2)
few days here. - 0.02% (2)
the fact that - 0.02% (2)
stay in the - 0.02% (2)
january 3, 2017 - 0.02% (2)
j. trump (@realdonaldtrump) - 0.02% (2)
3, 2017 by - 0.02% (2)
to build plant - 0.02% (2)
decides not to - 0.02% (2)
build plant in - 0.02% (2)
obvious lesson from - 0.02% (2)
next time you - 0.02% (2)
— donald j. - 0.02% (2)
in the united - 0.02% (2)
number of jobs - 0.02% (2)
will never be - 0.02% (2)
be prepared for - 0.02% (2)
in the us. - 0.02% (2)
hidden threads every - 0.02% (2)
costume and personally - 0.02% (2)
thread. there are - 0.02% (2)
going to get - 0.02% (2)
us does not - 0.02% (2)
bi-weekly visible open - 0.02% (2)
least one ssc - 0.02% (2)
by the end - 0.02% (2)
by end of - 0.02% (2)
he can spot - 0.02% (2)
to dress up - 0.02% (2)
will attend the - 0.02% (2)
of 2017: 50% - 0.02% (2)
or you could - 0.02% (2)
all of these - 0.02% (2)
the price of - 0.02% (2)
fail at the - 0.02% (2)
slate star codex - 0.02% (2)
who learned the - 0.02% (2)
some people might - 0.02% (2)
wouldn’t have been - 0.02% (2)
the current nih - 0.02% (2)
to raise my - 0.02% (2)
at this point - 0.02% (2)
another followup to - 0.02% (2)
“economists on education” - 0.02% (2)
most economists oppose - 0.02% (2)
answered the easy - 0.02% (2)
seems to be - 0.02% (2)
with drugs that - 0.02% (2)
might think the - 0.02% (2)
i will take - 0.02% (2)
alexander this is - 0.02% (2)
the bi-weekly visible - 0.02% (2)
open thread. there - 0.02% (2)
are hidden threads - 0.02% (2)
every few days - 0.02% (2)
here. post about - 0.02% (2)
anything you want, - 0.02% (2)
scenario is that - 0.02% (2)
that the fda - 0.02% (2)
whatever. also: 1. - 0.02% (2)
to spend a - 0.02% (2)
about it in - 0.02% (2)
watch new health - 0.02% (2)
candidates for fda - 0.02% (2)
to create a - 0.02% (2)
the rest of - 0.02% (2)
able to implement - 0.02% (2)
principled intelligent libertarians - 0.02% (2)
o’neill or srinivasan - 0.02% (2)
billion or so - 0.02% (2)
srinivasan might be - 0.02% (2)
dollars getting it - 0.02% (2)
approved by the - 0.02% (2)
so dollars getting - 0.02% (2)
it approved by - 0.02% (2)
if the fda - 0.02% (2)
other company is - 0.02% (2)
would be a - 0.02% (2)
stop having that - 0.02% (2)
but i think - 0.02% (2)
ask random questions, - 0.02% (2)
| tagged open - 0.02% (2)
the evidence against - 0.02% (2)
number of hours - 0.02% (2)
the middle east - 0.02% (2)
we need to - 0.02% (2)
that fail to - 0.02% (2)
i just got - 0.02% (2)
year of training, - 0.02% (2)
there’s only a - 0.02% (2)
chance that a - 0.02% (2)
once you learn - 0.02% (2)
the sorts of - 0.02% (2)
going to be - 0.02% (2)
things you learn - 0.02% (2)
by seeing patients - 0.02% (2)
other people might - 0.02% (2)
when you think - 0.02% (2)
acts as a - 0.02% (2)
only a few - 0.02% (2)
are biased towards - 0.02% (2)
the time they - 0.02% (2)
decreased minority turnout - 0.02% (2)
bring peace to - 0.02% (2)
to find a - 0.02% (2)
should buzzfeed publish - 0.02% (2)
the total number - 0.02% (2)
claims which are - 0.02% (2)
explosive if true - 0.02% (2)
but not yet - 0.02% (2)
failed to replicate - 0.02% (2)
have every reason - 0.02% (2)
carol dweck has - 0.02% (2)
the growth mindset - 0.02% (2)
to the middle - 0.02% (2)
no objections there - 0.02% (2)
based on these - 0.02% (2)
then i would - 0.02% (2)
a couple of - 0.02% (2)
of studies like - 0.02% (2)
have been published - 0.02% (2)
produce a few - 0.02% (2)
phenomenon will produce - 0.02% (2)
the entire field - 0.02% (2)
in the field. - 0.02% (2)
fail to find - 0.02% (2)
it (98% of - 0.02% (2)
can find a - 0.02% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.