To highlight the persistence of the confusion compare the confusion matrix in two wikipedia articles: [1] and [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-_and_post-test_probability...

(In case edits are made one way or the other: both articles display similar confusion matrices but disagree on the names of the off-diagonal elements. In [1] false positives are called "type I errors" and false negatives are called "type II errors". In [2] false positives are called "type II errors" and false negatives are called "type I errors".)

(Edit: layout)

I hate the number naming system. I have no idea why anyone would find it preferable to use them for literally any reason. Specificity and Sensitivity already almost mean the right things in common language already, they are perfect words for this. The only use for these is to confuse people so they don't realise you have no idea what you are talking about.

I think some people struggle to grasp that these are actually strict mathematical concepts. But personally, that makes me feel comfortable with them. It is a lot easier to get a math concept consitently right than some of the fuzzier concepts in epidemiology.

I particularly liked this:

> I like that "Type 1 error" and "Type 2 error" are both 4 syllables, just like "false negative" and "false positive". So they aren't briefer than the thing they describe (at least out loud, and even by char count it's not a huge win).

Remember Peter and the wolf. The villagers committed several Type I errors first and then a Type II error second.

But, yes, a prime example of terrible naming.

Not "Peter and the wolf", you mean "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". There are no villagers in Peter and the Wolf, and no statistical errors committed.

I believe in Portuguese, at least, that boy is also named Peter.

Yes! You are correct! Somehow I got them mixed up!

One of the greatest terrible technical names of all time has got to be the philosophers who knew than "intention" was already a word but decided that the opposite of "extension" should be "intension" because WHY SHOULDN'T WE JUST USE HOMOPHONES FOR SIMILAR BUT SUBTLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS FML

So that's what that means! I remember reading a philosophy article using that word and not being able to make heads or tails of it, constantly thinking "how is intension related to intention?"

Thank you for this! May it be shared far and wide until we can stop using these silly codewords.