> How can doctors tell which videos are valid and which contain bogus information?
They're doctors. They had years of training and know the basics of what they're booking up. It's closer to experienced developers looking up specific usage for some tool which they're familiar with otherwise, rather than learning from scratch.
Sure, there's going to be some extreme bad cases, but those are bad doctors in general, the source of info is not relevant.
> Developers are turning to Stack Overflow to fill in gaps in their training
There's a lot of garbage channels on YouTube, but there's no shortage of knowledgeable people too.
Nobody knows everything, and it turns out there are people on the internet who know things we don't.
Even experienced person could easily fall trap to this.
Except there's a lot more on the cutting edge I should be considering. Maybe GOAP is the right fit. Maybe HTN. Maybe something else. Sometimes these searches turn up results that are too specific to the old way of doing things and don't lead me to the latest and greatest.
If that matters put in whatever subject and a year like 2019.
Be warned the latest is rarely the greatest.
On SO it’s the luck of the draw on each individual question.
Doctors aren't magically smarter than developers.
You can hire a developer off the street who just happened to be the CEO's nephew. You can't do that with doctors.
There's a growing shortage of developers. What would that look like with more barriers to entry?
You can hire the CEO's nephew for any role. Doesn't mean you are getting anything done. That nephew can buy a medical degree abroad or locally at Harvard.
Twitter/FB going down, realistically, is not going to kill anyone.
Risk management is very real with people's very lives. The price going up is expected because of the filtering needed, but it shouldn't go up as fast as it does in America.
Note that lives are also lost (and much suffering is caused) by the extremely restricted and expensive medical environment. I actually expect that we'd be better off (utilons wise) if we relaxed some of the restrictions.
Socialized, single payer, gov mandated caps, etc etc. There are lots of options. Each come with their own poisons, but far more effective in terms of overall coverage than what we have available in America without material change to the restrictions.
Citation required. This is pure bullshit. Those gates aren't there just because someone said 'hey there should be a gate there.' Those gates are there to solve problems, and while they also create their own problems, that doesn't change the fact that the underlying problems are still there.
Those gates were put in place to solve a problem but in time gets abused.
It also has an effects on quality of instruction. Limiting the number of students tends to increase the quality of instruction, something I believe is extremely important in medicine.
I'm not saying that there are abuses. But you made the claim that the only effect it has is to raise prices, and that is completely wrong.
I'm a professional physicist, and I search for specialty-specific information multiple times per day, every day.
Here you go:
One-step synthesis of N-acetylcysteine and glutathione derivatives using the Ugi reaction
I can't seem to find an openly available PDF, but you can search sci-hub to pirate that.
From reading the abstract and the graphics, it doesn't exactly look like something you cook up in the kitchen. For instance they run the reaction in trifluoroethanol, which is flammable, toxic, irritant and possibly causes reduced fertility from exposure.
Also, pubchem might be of help as well. This is entirely free.
The graphics for the natural decay chains are eminently-usable and teachable.
I haven't seen a website like stack overflow in the sense of posting questions like "How do I purify after this Beckmann rearrangement?"
This is the biggest reason for teaching the basics of a broad variety of subjects: If you know what real information looks like, and how the real field basically fits together, you're less likely to be taken in by absolute nonsense. OTOH, if you get bad information to start, you're going to evaluate all subsequent information on that standard, and reject good information because it doesn't jibe with the bad stuff you've already internalized.
I was consequently referred to a hematologist.
She'll often does similar to verify she's not missing something obvious. In most cases, WebMD is simply agreeing with her pre-existing knowledge. Occasionally, it will present some other information - which she will research further to verify accuracy.
I was watching a video for a game I play, about a dogmatic approach to solving a particular problem and realized it had been min-maxed into the ground by bad math. By de-optimizing it a couple percent I could get 2 and a half beneficial outcomes instead of just the one. Given how time consuming the process is, it was madness to sink so much effort into solving only one problem. Of course having spotted something someone else missed, I've been staying up too late trying to validate my theory. Unfortunately my change barely made it any faster, and my first attempt to break it down into two phases didn't work out and ended up costing me more time than I had saved.
Point is, I got all new nuances and areas to explore based on watching a video that I felt was provably wrong.
The idea of a medical equivalent to a "script kiddie" is a somewhat amusing mental image, though.
Around 2010, I started noticing medical professionals had less information about what I had come in with than what I could find in my own research.
Not every time, but part of the time I've felt like I did not get valuable information gleaned from obvious experience.
Other times, I've found treatments I can handle on my own, saving copays and deductibles. For example, the procedure for draining blood from a fingernail after slamming it in a car door.
More recently, I had ankle sprain that seemed to recur, and a medical visit for $65 came back with "go to PT."
Which was going to be $125 per session. So I watched youtube videos and got therabands and have been doing the exercises for "free." And it is working.
There is unquestionable space for medical professionals, their treatments and the gates they create between people and prescribed medicines.
However, just as YC has turned expensive legal processes into simplified documents "anyone" can use online, some medical diagnosis / treatments have been similarly decomodified.
Whilst you are correct that trephining a nail (making a hole) to relieve the subungal haematoma (blood under the nail) beneath isn't a very skilled procedure, that's not why we see these patients. Most of the time, it is a simple straightforward injury requiring simple treatment. But a significant amount of the time there is an underlying open fracture of the distal phalanx (bone at end of finger) which can lead to a severe, potentially finger-threatening infection. There are also often nail bed injuries which without repair will lead to nail deformities.
There are a lot of injuries I have seen with delayed presentation where patients felt they knew what to do and wanted to save themselves the time of visiting the hospital (as there is no additional financial cost to healthcare in the UK). Many of these delays have led to severe infection requiring hospitalisation and surgery which would not have been required if they had visited promptly, or presenting past the point where we can fix e.g. a mallet finger, displaced fracture, etc.
As in all fields, there is a danger in not knowing what you don't know.
This idea that one cannot use Youtube to learn about medicine is a little silly. I use Wikipedia daily to further my understanding of diseases. Hell, it's usually the first place I go when I have a question.
On the other hand, your ankle sprain example is a good one to use for a reason why doctors can be really important for basic things like PT. A rather large percentage of people straight up will not follow a basic PT regimen (let alone a diet/exercise change) to resolve a problem unless 1) a doctor tells them to, and 2) they are instructed on exactly what to do at regular on-site sessions. Ortho offices are packed with people who just want an MRI and some injections rather than having to actually do some work over the course of a few months to get better.
For people who are self-motivated and take care of their own health, doctors are rarely actually needed until you get to the point of needing specific tests and prescriptions. But for the other ~80ish percent of people, doctors are pretty much the only route to getting better.
This is answered in the same sentence. Blood was pooling up under the fingernail and had to be drained.
Some people can run with it and be fine and some really can't.
I know from first-hand experience that discussing it online is a space with a lot of pitfalls. It's difficult to gauge the level of background knowledge of your audience and challenging to provide enough warnings to make it safe and useful while not insulting anyone's intelligence when different people in the audience will have vastly different levels of background knowledge pertinent to the problem space.
She wanted to be a doctor at one time and delivered babies in her teens. She was quite knowledgeable about medical stuff.
You lack the internal knowledge-base that somebody with training has and therefore you are much more likely to mis-diagnose yourself, fall into an edge case that somebody with training could have easily caught, or miss something very important because it wasn't stated in the video you watched.
I dunno man... when it comes to the medial field I personally let the experts do their work. Relying on the internet, which is especially full of superstition, noise and pure bullshit when it comes to medial information, seems like setting yourself up to get hurt. But maybe that is just me...
In reality, other than medical scientific knowledge and methods, effective treatments also come from having compassion and caring deeply for your patients. Unfortunately, we have to admit that not all doctors today have that. I have seen the good and the bad ones, good doctors were really good and bad doctors were also really terrible, just like in any other professions I guess. Without those human attributes though, those bad doctors can't really help anyone as it is the main force driving them to help seek the right cures for the patients. Worse, they may contribute to misdiagnoses and malpractices that are the prevalent sources for medical related accidents and deaths.
As individuals, we should all educate ourselves so we are more equipped in working together with the doctors when issues arise, rather staying in the unknown and completely leave your own fate to the hand of luck.
This is my experience with every doctor in NZ. Unfortunately, we have a toll system where i still have to pay every 3 months for literally zero value except 30 seconds of signing off my drugs.
Doctors are referring to textbooks to fill in gaps in their knowledge.
Any doctor who isn't doing that possibly is in the wrong profession. Indeed most of what is learned in a medical degree is so the doctor can assess these sources and embrace or reject them.
Doctors attend lectures at conferences. Always have. Now cheap video distribution exists. So now sometimes virtually attending the lecture on youtube that they otherwise would have not been able to see.
Surgical techniques are often better demonstrated than described, so videoing them makes some sense. Watching videos of techniques that have the potential to be better than what you are using is a very good thing. Assessing and rejecting them if it turns out the technique isn't better is obviously what any competent human being would do.
Quality control? Hell medical journals barely have that. Ask a statistician about medical journal quality control - it's only driving policy accross all of health care...
You have to assess sources, evidence, outcomes etc. for literally anything that is new or you suspect might need revisiting. Any doctor who can't do that effectively should not be using that particular source or possibly should not be a doctor at all.
The practioners of every single complex job have "gaps in their knowledge" - nobody knows everyting. Most if not all people faced with having to perform tasks where they don't have perfect knowledge are using resources to study. Online video is just one, very effective in certain cases, way of increasing knowledge.
CNBC may not be a way of increasing knowledge based on this article and I assess a youtube video demonstrating the reading of this article is something I might reject as being useful.
While I was in medical school, the vast majority of my education came from online resources, YouTube, question banks, or ancillary books that were not part of the official curriculum. If you go to any medical student in the US today, they'll be familiar with the four key resources: UWorld (massive bank of USMLE board questions), First Aid (reference text book containing key information for board exams), Pathoma (video series teaching histology and pathology created by a University of Chicago pathologist), and SketchyMedical (another video series of visual mnemonics to help you memorize microbiology and pharmacology facts). There are also community driven projects such as Zanki and Brosencephalon, which are Anki decks with 25,000+ cards containing info needed for board exams. Another popular YouTube channel is Armando Hasudungan, who illustrates medical concepts aimed towards med students.
The med school I went to and many others are moving away from the traditional lecture-based model. Lectures at my school were offered, but they were optional and attendance was usually <25% of our class as the quality was notoriously poor. My med school classmates and I found learning much, much more effective with this hands off approach. This does call in to question the value and role of a medical school today. Now that I'm a resident working with other residents who went to med schools all across the US, I'm realizing that most of us just forced our way through the official curriculum and did most of our "real" learning using the same resources I mentioned above.
I pull up online sources pretty regularly in the back of an ambulance. Most often to look up the details of some more obscure medication or condition in the pt's medical history. Generally I try to do it out of eyeshot of the pt...
But since I'm much more knowledgeable about certain programming or mathematical techniques, I can do much quicker searches to refresh my memory since my BS filter is going to go off pretty quickly, and I can verify the truth of a source based on a more extensive background.
The fear mongering in this article requires you to assume that doctors are much more like amateur carpenters clicking on links at random rather than highly trained practitioners with years of education in their field.
> Enter the online world of medical references that your doctor uses instead of Google: UpToDate, DynaMed, Current, and many more. These are medically sound, evidence-based databases that tell doctors most things they need to know to be able to treat just about any patient according to the most up to date guidelines.
The headline makes it sound like someone is watching a YT video and then walking into the OR to perform an operation.
Would the surgeon feel confident with that situation? That's another question entirely.
I suspect this is the type of thing most doctors are interested in seeing people rely upon, rather than youtube. It's been vetted for quality. There are obviously downsides (getting procedures to appear on this is more complicated than just uploading a video to youtube), but it seems much harder to question the quality.
Honestly people are doing serious research on it, and besides that you can get lectures or even just friendly monologues/QAs from experts on almost any subject. It was MIT's math videos that convinced me to start watching it, after that I found some of my favorite proffessor's lectures there too along with a lot of graduate level stuff from other universities. Then there where all the videos from amateur and professional scientists and musicians and so on. The basics of my personal understanding of music theory came from a nearly century old book I found in a used book store but it's grown a lot thanks to youtube.
I hate that it's controlled by a single company, and that they keep tearing down the chemistry channels but while it's still no substitute for reading papers when you get into really niche subjects (ex: molecular dynamics and computational chemistry) the educational side of youtube is surprisingly underrated.
You'd expect the sidebar to be filled with similar 40 minute lectures uploaded from similar university accounts with similar low viewer counts, but instead the sidebar was filled with these zaney outlandish conspiracy theory videos. They probably got preference on the sidebar because they contained all the relevant keywords in their headings (not counting the obligatory "Hillary" or "Satan" or "Lizard person" found in most of these titles), coupled with millions of views.
Sometimes I like to imagine a youtube where it's the university lecures that get millions of views, not the far right tinfoil hat content that eventually rears it's ugly head in every sidebar feed on the site.
To me, the coolest part about youtube is it is "direct to consumer" with no middlemen. With few exceptions, all the content I watch comes directly from regular people making videos about things they are passionate about (be it mine exploration, building stuff with CNC mills, urban exploration, documenting abandoned malls, filming their day driving a train, picking locks, etc). There isn't some production company that sets guidelines or provides funding... it is just regular people.
I do agree it is a problem that youtube is the only real player in town to host this sort of thing. Hopefully that will change over time.
I now basically avoid doctors other than for the yearly checkup or if there's something serious that Google can't fix (broken leg, or a prescription).
Then again, they might wind up posting a question about a compound fracture only for it to be closed as a duplicate with a link to something about an impacted molar.
For instance, one recent study found more than 68,000 videos associated with a common procedure known as a distal radius fracture immobilization. The researchers evaluated the content for their technical skill demonstrated and educational skill, and created a score. Only 16 of the videos even met basic criteria, including whether they were performed by a health-care professional or institution. Among those, the scores were mixed. In several cases, the credentials of the person performing the procedure could not be identified at all.
Even more concerning, studies are finding that the YouTube algorithm is highly ranking videos where the technique isn’t optimal. A group of researchers found that for a surgical technique called a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, about half the videos showed unsafe maneuvers.
Online epistemology is more and more important and while our culture is trying to catch up it is still behind. There is lots and lots of important phenomena (for example https://www.gwern.net/Littlewood).
By the way patients are also using online resources and encounter similar problems: https://medium.com/@zby/rational-patient-community-6d3617dff...
So I told him "I already know that because you're basically just reciting the very same web site I was looking at yesterday before going to the ER but I felt that I should see an actually doctor about it. So do you have any clue what could have caused the shock or should I just pay close attention to what I eat, drink etc just like it says on that web site and hope for the best that I find the food that I'm allergic to?"
He had no clue. Thank god for free healthcare (oh well, tax paid universal healthcare) in Sweden.
So when a doctor or medical professional doesn't know the exact reason for something (e.g. why did I get x?) many start thinking the doctor is stupid/useless/incompetent. Well it turns out that medicine is still a very inexact science and there are many things that are not well understood.
But that indeed is true of reality. The difference is in the likelihood of being able to find that root cause.
I think any programmer can appreciate the difficulty of finding answers in a domain that proves elusive.
Take the example of a spaghetti codebase. You know the answer is there somewhere, but you wouldn't fault someone for not being able to give you an answer.
So I wouldn't be so certain. In fact I feel many would understand the difficulties and not disparage a doctor for being unable to give an exact diagnosis.
I think this actually just further proves the GP more than correct.
Comparing the complexity of determining the root cause of some disease processes and biological processes in general to a "spaghetti codebase" just underscores the disconnect that programmers and engineers have with some of the complexity in nature. There is no manmade codebase shitty or otherwise, even large enough to approximate the complexity of understanding even some of the more rudimentary biological mechanisms, let alone extending that to actual clinical disease presentation.
In clinical medicine we don't necessarily think "the answer is in there somewhere", we don't know the answer, and further the full answer is most likely unknowable in our lifetime, so effectively as far as providing care is concerned, the answer really isn't there.
I am aware of and entirely sympathetic to the order of magnitude differences in complexity between biological processes and digital constructs.
It was not my intention to compare the two as if they were on equal footing, though I can see how it can be interpreted that way--my fault.
That is to say I’d hope what they are watching is current and medically accepted information.
The article does claim that most of the ones accessed by profs are produced by professionals in their field —apparently in an effort to market their skills and help other professionals...
But one would hope there is some vetting going on.
Sadly, that isn't always the case; given how much Doctors pay to graduate, you'd think everyone coming out of college would be highly educated, and that isn't true at all.
It’s great for learning techniques, but it also means the right answer is the preceptor’s desired answer. Which isn’t much different than random videos.
In other words, old bad habits don’t die, they get reinforced.
Book-learning has its advantages, but it isn’t as fun.
That's not even getting into the monetary and political factors involved. It took decades for society to agree that smoking was bad for your health, because of all the money paid to bribe scientists, doctors, and politicians. And this was obvious. The food industry is orders of magnitude larger in monetary terms, and involves far more people, many with political influence worldwide.
I give doctors a pass on this.
The systems in place to prevent doctors and scientists from taking money to push drugs or falsify data are failing us which is how companies regularly use scientists to get whatever results they want published and drug companies bribe doctors to prescribe harmful medications unnecessarily.
Anyone can be bribed, but not many of us could get away with it at the scale that brought us things like the opioid crises and few of us have literal lives at stake when we are tempted to act unethically.
As for quality control, this is what our critical faculties are for. I have no data but suspect good critical thinking skills correlate well with being a good doctor, so I don't worry about these people picking up information from YouTube.
Bringing this back to programming, others have mentioned StackOverflow. StackOverflow has descended into a cesspool of crowdsourced ignorance but nevertheless it's still possible for competent developers to find useful information there.
On the flipside, if StackOverflow disappeared tomorrow, all the bad programmers finger-vomiting garbage "information" across every question would continue to be bad programmers.
> ..."The researchers evaluated the content for their technical skill demonstrated and educational skill, and created a score. Only 16 of the videos even met basic criteria, including whether they were performed by a health-care professional or institution."
As I understand it; professionals compared the techniques used to the techniques as they are taught in classrooms and textbooks and found that the techniques used in the video would not have resulted in a passing grade in a classroom environment.
Assuming that is true then the root cause isn't low quality YT videos. That is a symptom of the problem that the learning materials provided in classroom environments are not providing enough educational value to students in the first place.
I'm not in the medical field, but I've watched the struggle and politics of people fighting through medical school. It is grueling. If it's anything like tech then maybe 65% of it will apply in the real world and 15% you won't ever need to use in the first place. It's also going to be loaded with advanced technical jargon and put an incredible cognitive stress on students to teach otherwise simple, menial tasks while stressing statistics and verbatim policy while completely losing the spirit of those statistics and policies.
So to fix the issue, researchers should be studying these YT videos to determine what makes them so informational and engaging.
With car or computer repair videos people familiar with the subject matter will skip the non-essential information, focusing cognitive resources on the parts they need to clarify most. Students can focus on their own deficiencies without having to waste energy on arbitrary and irrelevant information.
10 years from now, will we see high level research from CERN being published to YT before it goes to Nature (or some other journal)?
(I'm still showing people scihub because they just wouldn't access the papers otherwise)
Even if you aren’t, you do get access to the university’s library if you take some students.
I am not a medical practitioner. How easy is it to obtain non-copyright encumbered videos of procedures for hosting and dissemination?
We haven't established that no-healthcare is superior to healthcare from "obviously boot-camped doctor". It may open up access to healthcare to more people.
There are lots of paid medical video sites, e.g. a quick search turns up https://www.madeformedical.com/ and https://cine-med.com/. Presumably these are better curated than YouTube and may even go through some type of peer-review process.
While not equivalent to a medical procedure, I had some furnace issues last year. I was able to do a lot of repairs myself with a mix of reading forum posts and youtube videos. I ended up having to call a furnace tech for an issue that was outside my comfort area at the time, but I was still able to communicate my issue with him more intelligently because of the knowledge I learned from watching a few videos.
Like, I already told you I swapped the coils and spark plugs around. The problem didn’t move, so they can’t be the problem!
Are you assuming they’ll have no gaps?
Not to mention that this would avoid all the rawness of surgery; the distinct smell of blood and shit, the warm pulsing body of the patient, oddly presented internals and what they mean, knowledge that nicking an artery could end a patients life in minutes.
Maybe the better angle is figuring out how to get more cadavers in the hands of med students or docs for practice.
That's not at all how actual science works. Actual science admits "This is our best understanding currently. Feel free to improve upon it."
Shouldn't we be well past the abusive treatment doled out to Galileo for daring to dissent? He was eventually determined to be correct, but it was well after his death, so it did nothing to remedy his troubles.
Otherwise any joe shmoe with a youtube following can start encouraging nursing mothers to have a glass of pigs blood before bed or some other nonsense.
It's tempting to imagine expertise as something that should be equitable, but it's hard to beat the foundational knowledge of someone who had four years of biology coursework, four years of medical course work, for years of residency, then however many years still in the field, still thinking about the same problems and how to solve them, vs. someone who spent 2 hours searching google or struggling through pubmed articles and are looking to best the person providing them care.
Galileo was a university trained physicist and astronomer with over 30 years in the field, he wasn't a layman at all. In fact, a little more on Galileo.
He wasn't condemned for 'daring do dissent,' his theories had merit and supporters. Galileo just critiqued people's theories so throughly and aggressively in his letters that he pissed a lot of people off in academic italy by just dismantling their work. Eventually one prick got the inquisition on the case, the pope asked galileo to write a detailed book to set the record straight with his theories, and while galileo did that he did it by making the pope a character in his book, portrayed as complete idiot, circulated the book all over catholic Europe, and shit naturally hit the fan. Apples and oranges.
The reason you see the same treatments and basic medicines and panels each time you go to the GP is because your problems are pedestrian compared to what doctors actually train for. Most likely, you're not even being seen by someone with an M.D. - casual checkups are often beneath their paygrade.
Doctors undergo a decade of specialized training in order to diagnose and treat issues far beyond anything that you can Just Google. Determining the factors affecting which treatments to apply, considering the tradeoffs, and making the right call are skills that AI will not achieve in our lifetime, no matter how many VC-funded tech-bro AI startups try.
If you could spend a day in the shoes of an aspiring medical resident, working 80-hour weeks and studying for board exams at the same time, you'd count your lucky stars that we don't license the software profession like we do medicine. Maybe we should.
Surely, differentiating between a garden-variety peptic ulcer and stomach cancer can be difficult given the symptom overlap but that's why doctors undergo a decade of specialized training, right? Alas, all the doctor he scheduled a casual checkup with could see was that this patient's pedestrian problems were beneath their paygrade. At least as far as I was told, his symptoms were dismissed out of hand and he was diagnosed with an ulcer and sent on his way without any sort of workup being done. Presumably the doctor felt that spending time diagnosing someone with such common symptoms was not what they trained for.
I guess VC-funded tech-bro AI startups don't have a monopoly on making the wrong call. (Or on hubris!)
Take the case of someone having a psychotic episode for the first time, with no prior history, who goes into the ER. The doctors will instantly put them on an anti psychotic medication. This decision will usually stop the psychosis, and means that they "fixed" the patient. But the ramifications of being put on these drugs prior to a proper diagnoses could be that the patient is never able to successfully get off them, a lifetime of drug dependence due to a split second decision. (Getting off these drugs often causes psychosis in itself, which creates a vicious life long cycle).
The medical institution bears no error in this case, they gave "treatment". Not putting the patient on medication is a risk to them, so they do it every time. The patient is uneducated in this matter, does not know that they will damage their brain, lose IQ points. The list goes on and on, it happens every day.
Treating the sniffles does not require a personalized care plan in the majority of cases. You'll get the bog standard treatment of the symptoms, which is actually the best we can do. It would be an institutional waste to personalize that kind of care for each patient and provision an M.D. each time -- you'd actually be putting other patients at risk, with more complicated problems, who critically need that doctor's experience instead.
A family member went to the doctor to get a work up on a rare disease. The work up basically followed a flow chart from a specialist center that was easily accessible online.
I’m sure there’s some additional confidence from experience and knowledge of the first principles that vastly outweighs my judgement, but on the surface it didn’t seem like the doctor had obtained a skill set that should command a 2x-3x training and schooling premium.
IT doesn't reprovision your work laptop after you accidentally deleted a file, they follow the appropriate process for the task ("they just pulled up the system restore flow chart, what am I even paying these guys for").
The industry as it currently is, with restricted supply of doctors, memory based entrance exams, etc makes no sense
Isn’t that akin to “Treating the symptoms”? Eg. In case of most common viral infections, you literally can’t do anything but treat the symptoms.
> They prescribe the same thing to the same set of symptoms basically every time, without much capacity to take in the nuances of some condition.
Could it be because statistically “trivial cases that they, in their practice, have treated numerous times” occur more frequently than rare cases? (I’m speculating).
I really dislike the idea of a club with legal powers over you, such as doctors or lawyers, that both set their own rules and control entrance to the club.
It strikes me as feudalistic and undemocratic. Oppressive. As an American I find it vaguely un-American!
In the broadest sense, there are two types of things in the world: things that tend toward (or cluster around) some kind of “natural” value, and things that don’t.
Often times, you are not briefed on the distribution of the graph which the very "average" is being derived from, viscerally it is being surmised that it follows a “Gaussian” distribution by the patient which then makes significant medical decisions based on such bits of information.
Therefore, I'd advise caution for those who'd base their medical decisions on arbitrary "averages", instead you are much better off if you were to take a look at the graph to see if the word "average" carries any meaning at all in such distributions.
(As best I can remember, those were his exact words. No, I'm not cleaning it up to be more PC.)
“Average” is a very vague term.
It stuck with me because it's a nutshell version of the book "How to lie with statistics" in a humorous and highly memorable form. Someone with one breast, one testicle and a little penis would be a bizarre statistical outlier for the human race, but "mathematically" speaking, it's an accurate description.
It speaks to a lot of common errors of logic and it's pithy.
Not sure, but I wonder if more nuance in statements like this would make them more persuasive. For some reason absolute certainty kind of turns me off.
You arent some kind of high priest, I am allowed to question and understand medicine. I am also not afraid of academic publications, and attempts at belittling me for doing so come from a place of insecurity on your part.
All of that knowledge in your head is on the internet.
hackspaces may work if automated diagnosis proves decent for most common ailments, and doctors will have to become a lot more specialized in difficult cases