Something might have happened

Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here

Mark

Site Champ
Site Donor
Posts
289
Reaction score
603
@SuperMatt @PearsonX
i had never heard of Dunning-Kruger theory.
the wiki says it is highly disputed.
and that people who fall into the category of not understanding their true ability are said to be, colloquially, on (quoting from from the wiki mind you...) Mount Stupid
lets not feed trolls. trolls often self-project in an offensive way.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,505
Reaction score
2,712
@SuperMatt @PearsonX
i had never heard of Dunning-Kruger theory.
the wiki says it is highly disputed.
and that people who fall into the category of not understanding their true ability are said to be, colloquially, on (quoting from from the wiki mind you...) Mount Stupid
lets not feed trolls.
It's a very American phenomenon:

Studies of the Dunning–Kruger effect usually have been of North Americans, but studies of Japanese people suggest that cultural forces have a role in the occurrence of the effect.[7] The study "Divergent Consequences of Success and Failure in Japan and North America: An Investigation of Self-improving Motivations and Malleable Selves"[8] indicated that Japanese people tended to underestimate their abilities and to see underachievement (failure) as an opportunity to improve their abilities at a given task, thereby increasing their value to the social group.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
606
@SuperMatt @PearsonX
i had never heard of Dunning-Kruger theory.
the wiki says it is highly disputed.
and that people who fall into the category of not understanding their true ability are said to be, colloquially, on (quoting from from the wiki mind you...) Mount Stupid
lets not feed trolls. trolls often self-project in an offensive way.

Have you heard of the Dilbert Principle?
 

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Posts
2,427
Reaction score
3,746
Awards
1
The sky is blue; this is obvious. None need ask “why is it obvious the sky is blue?” Kind of the definition of obvious: self-evident: it needn’t be explained.

I do.

In my part of the world, the sky is usually grey, because of cloud cover. Not blue.

And, when you approach high altitude, - at the edge of the measured atmosphere - the "sky" becoes midnight navy in perceived colour, and then, stark black.

So, no, such matters are not "obvious" at all, let alone "self-evident".

Actually, I spent an embarrassing amount of my childhood asking "why"?

One has to ask why, both in matters considered the domain of science and those supposedly confined to the domain, or study of, society. Nothing is "self-evident".

And, usually, those who reach for the "self-evident" argument are conservatives who wish the world to remain as it is, with the values and attitudes and actions which support it, automatically accepted and unexamined and unquestioned.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,505
Reaction score
2,712
I do.

In my part of the world, the sky is usually grey, because of cloud cover. Not blue.

And, when you approach high altitude, - at the edge of the measured atmosphere - the "sky" becoes midnight navy in perceived colour, and then, stark black.

So, no, such matters are not "obvious" at all, let alone "self-evident".

Actually, I spent an embarrassing amount of my childhood asking "why"?

One has to ask why, both in matters considered the domain of science and those supposedly confined to the domain, or study of, society. Nothing is "self-evident".

And, usually, those who reach for the "self-evident" argument are conservatives who wish the world to remain as it is, with the values and attitudes and actions which support it, automatically accepted and unexamined and unquestioned.
It’s not self-evident, but again for a lot of us who see and try to fight disparities (and many of my colleagues who study it) it hits home because she didn’t fit the profile of someone who is “usually the victim of the system”.
I don’t remember if the New York Times story covered that, but she switched providers prior to her discharge, so her premature discharge is not attributable to the person she was primarily complaining about. Based on what I recall she was pretty symptomatic (damn dictation system) even the day before, and the discharge sounds premature, however it all depends on bed availability, and pressure to admit new patients based on the ER load.
 
Last edited:

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Posts
2,427
Reaction score
3,746
Awards
1
America’s Declaration of Independence begins with truths the founders of the country felt were obvious:

”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps nothing is obvious to everyone, but anything can be obvious to someone.

@SuperMatt:

1: I am not American.

This means that appeals (by quoting the Founding Fathers - some of whom - Benjamin Franklin comes to mind, he is wonderfully witty, sceptical, ironical, creative, intelligent, and respectful of liberal philosophy and the English language - I actually admire) mean little to me, as they will not work on my heart-strings, stir my loyalty, or define my political preferences, or lay claim to my allegiance. Bear in mind, I'm from Europe.

In fact, you might as well quote the Soviet Constitution of 1924 (based on the Treaty of the creation of the USSR in 1922 - in an earlier life, I taught Russian history, and indeed, for that matter, I have also taught US politics) at me.

2: While I think that it would be difficult to argue that race (ethnicity) does not have an influence on economic, legal, policy and political (and health) outcomes, I think that @Gutwrench's point is that you have not conclusively proven (and no, it is not "obvious", just very likely) that race/ethnicity influenced the outcome in the case under discussion in this thread.

3: "Obvious" - in rhetorical terms, is, a very high - actually, an insanely high - standard (in debate, argument, rhetoric, law) to meet.

Personally, for what it is worth, I think it - "obvious" - a silly hill to choose (rhetorically) to die on. Because, nothing is "obvious", not until proven, or one's interlocutors persuaded that this is, indeed, "obvious".

I've worked as an academic, a political analyst, an international election observer, a diplomat: A heads-up: I never, ever, ever, ever, sought refuge in "obvious". Let us put it this way: It is a philosophical, and rhetorical, cul-de-sac, one that is almost impossible to defend.
 
Last edited:

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,505
Reaction score
2,712
2: While I think that it would be difficult to argue that race (ethnicity) does not have an influence on economic, legal, policy and political (and health) outcomes, I think that @Gutwrench's point is that you have not conclusively proven (and no, it is not "obvious", just very likely) that race/ethnicity influenced the outcome in the case under discussion in this thread.
And that could have been an interesting discussion if there were interest in making it one. But let me flick this back because there's a double standard here. The person who made the claim was a practicing physician with a degree from a top medical school, so if we are so pro-authority, she's enough of an authority figure to take her claim at face value. Or not?!
 

Mark

Site Champ
Site Donor
Posts
289
Reaction score
603
@SuperMatt

your reference to one of the most inspirational of all texts in the English language, is most amazing. thank you.

the wiki article on the background of the phraseology of this sentence was most enlightening to me:

After Jefferson finished he gave the document to Franklin to proof. Franklin suggested minor changes, one of which stands out far more than the others: "We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." became "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

to me this change made by Franklin is most revealing, and has significance even in this thread in a faceless internet age.

the change references that indeed, some things, even self-evident ones, could and would still be denied by some people.
while people do continue to deny truths that are indeed, self-evident, it doesn't make them any less self-evident. period.

during an age of slavery, for Jefferson and Franklin to assert that it is self-evident that all men are created equal - wow this blows my mind at how revolutionary that thinking was at the time.

Americans can be justly proud of this document. Although America has never lived up fully to its provisions, it is still an aspirational document for America and the entire world.

thanks for reminding me of this important phrase - of what it means for some truths, justices, and moral imperatives to be, indeed, self-evident.
 
Last edited:

Renzatic

Site Champ
Posts
938
Reaction score
1,783
CoURJ1B.jpg
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
606
America’s Declaration of Independence begins with truths the founders of the country felt were obvious:

”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps nothing is obvious to everyone, but anything can be obvious to someone.

Declaring concepts as self evident as in the Declaration of Independence is not in the same universe as making a claim of being wronged and then saying the evidence of it is self evident. 😂

This logic is wholesale entertainment.
 

Renzatic

Site Champ
Posts
938
Reaction score
1,783
The American founders claimed to have been wronged by England, sparking the Declaration. They said the rights being violated were self-evident.

What’s the difference? There were more of them? They were men? They were white? It was a long time ago?

To be fair, they did have the documentation to back up their claims of self evidence. They had been bitching about it for years by that point.
 

JayMysteri0

Elite Member
Posts
1,888
Reaction score
3,853
Awards
1
This was probably NOT the best statement to put out about this...

I am even more saddened by the experience she described in the video. It hurt me personally to see a patient reach out via social media because they felt their care was inadequate and their personal needs were not being heard. I also saw several human perspectives in the story she told – that of physicians who were trying to manage the care of a complex patient in the midst of a pandemic crisis where the medical evidence on specific treatments continues to be debated in medical journals and in the lay press. And the perspective of a nursing team trying to manage a set of critically ill patients in need of care who may have been intimidated by a knowledgeable patient who was using social media to voice her concerns and critique the care they were delivering. All of these perspectives comprise a complex picture. At the end of the day, I am left with the image of a distressed patient who was a member of our own profession—one we all hold dear and that exists to help serve and better the lives of others. These factors make this loss doubly distressing.

That statement kind of leans into the 'blame the victim' aspect we see far too often.

It's also some interesting logic used there, that a patient that is known to the public is treated differently because they are known to the public. What did anyone imagine would happen if said patient passes? No one would know & want to know why?
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,505
Reaction score
2,712
More doctors are coming forward to draw attention to this unfortunate death. It is only one example of what people of color face within the American health system, as shown by the statistics (linked earlier in the thread and in the 2nd story below).



Some people would rather we go on a tangent on whether something is obvious or not. That was never the point of this post. Perhaps it isn’t obvious to everybody, but there is a great deal of evidence that people of color get worse treatment when it comes to healthcare in America.
I've read this one. It covers a lot of my concerns as well, although I found the title a little off-putting.
There are other complexities here, so while hospitalization outcomes are generally worse for Blacks, COVID in-hospital mortality rates seems to be similar or even better than that of Caucasians (data published in Circulation and JAMA - top journals). I haven't yet had time to dive into how the numbers look after adjusting for other risk factors. In general being Black is a risk factor for testing positive for COVID, so that is undoubtedly a pre-hospital risk factor.

This was probably NOT the best statement to put out about this...

From the release:



That statement kind of leans into the 'blame the victim' aspect we see far too often.

It's also some interesting logic used there, that a patient that is known to the public is treated differently because they are known to the public. What did anyone imagine would happen if said patient passes? No one would know & want to know why?
I'm glad it was included, because she was definitely not easy to take care of. Many patients use social media immediately to complain about their care. There's a certain type of patient usually with a business or "hard-science" background who dunning-kruger their way to retain control by micromanaging their own care that lead to deviations from protocol, more microerrors, worse care and more dissatisfaction. This situation is different however, because she did have the expertise. The stuff she complained about were basic items of care, with most controversial being remdesivir...

Again, we don't have enough information here to make adequate judgement, but only """tough guys""" think that discussing it will make us "tender-hearted".
 
Last edited:

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
606
The American founders claimed to have been wronged by England, sparking the Declaration. They said the rights being violated were self-evident.

What’s the difference? There were more of them? They were men? They were white? It was a long time ago?

The founders declared a presumption essentially making it law. That presumption is that all are created equal.

When someone claims to have being wronged, like in civil or criminal matters, one must establish the claims are true to a preponderance. And the other party can rebutt. Their claim is not self evident proof. It is merely a claim.

Do you need more of an explanation?
 
Last edited:
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here
Top Bottom