> If a Type I error is a false positive, a Type II error is a false negative, and a Type III error is getting the right answer to the wrong question, is a Type IV error GIVING IMPORTANT CONCEPTS NUMBERS INSTEAD OF NAMES FOR NO GODDAMN REASON AND CONFUSING GENERATIONS OF STUDENTS
Also, I find the Confusion Matrix[2] to be a helpful reference, especially the multi-colored table with formulae for each condition.
[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 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 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).
But, yes, a prime example of terrible naming.