2024 ELECTION THREAD

Ya sure, no worries, I'm just replying to your post from hours ago.

Sounds like you prefer a consensus over a lone dissenter, then, huh?

Interesting idea.

Yes doctors can make mistakes, nobody is denying that. We are just saying untrained unintelligent bros obsessed with politics that aren’t very good at science can also make mistakes.

The biggest of which is sticking their nose into a subject they know nothing about.

It is pretty obvious, it's just that nobody understands why you're arguing it. Nobody was disputing any of that, you're just stating the blindingly obvious, as you said. It's not even clear what it's in response to.

He was repeating a statistic that I had already read.

If you're asking if I think that people had opinions on how the different sexes act or should act prior to 1959 then I'm sure they did.

If you're asking if I think the idea that people thought they have some hidden part of their psychological makeup that determines if they act like their sex or not then I don't think so. Psychology was still in the throes of behaviorism in those days and so the theory would have been that males act like males because they see other males acting that way (and getting rewarded) and females likewise.

Each side is not wrong to defend both the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach (via critiquing the top-down).

The disagreement seems to be: In which direction are we out of balance at a macro level?

The more populist leaning people will say the top-down (obviously). Trying to convince one side they are mistaken on their macro level view will be difficult because, for someone following politics closely, their position is based on an accumulation of many data points.

A large part of this is the gap between experiencing symptoms viscerally and describing that experience to someone else who might be tired, going through a divorce, angry at Trump or Kamala, or whatever other thing can distort an otherwise educated opinion. A doctor who experiences his own symptoms is going to have a much higher success rate at correct diagnosis than someone he barely knows, in poor condition, explaining it to them in an office at 3pm on a Friday.

Gender expression has pretty much always been a thing, it just hasn't ever been really studied until recently. It's a social construct, obviously, so it changes as society changes. There's an obvious correlation with biological sex, but it isn't a 100% correlation, even if many people would really like it to be.

Gender is also obviously a spectrum, not a binary. There's very little disagreement about this. It's also pretty easy to demonstrate. All you have to do is think about people you know that you might consider more or less masculine or feminine than others and it should quickly become obvious that it's a spectrum.

I didn't rely on it. I said that he repeated it to me. A statistic that I read elsewhere a few times. Meanwhile the statistic is wrong only because misdiagnosis doesn't cause death (and usually doesn't result in malpractice suits). The Mayo clinic statistic hasn't been refuted. As far as whether most doctors are "smart", I was obviously defining that word to mean something like National Merit Scholars. (top 2%).

Wow, if it's so easy to distract someone from doing something competently that they are trained and experienced in, maybe we should think twice about getting on a flight (pilot might be mad at Kamala), walking near a building site (crane operator might be tired/hung over) or crossing the road (plenty of drivers thinking about their divorce). Hidden dangers lurk everywhere, better just to stay at home and secure that tin foil hat!

Or is it your view that doctors are somehow uniquely susceptible to letting their personal problems get in the way of doing their job?

Can you form a complete sentence without committing a fallacy?

Yes. Thank you for asking.

In a hypothetical world, the gender constructionists could run an experiment to socialize gender norms out of its population, and over a long enough timeline, they would fail miserably.

This is only because the internet gives access to "research" your problem. Pre-infotech era, doctors qualified by memorising vast amounts of stuff in books for a couple of years and then being shown how to apply that stuff for a few years. Plumbers did apprenticeships with knowledgeable tradesmen.

To learn about "your condition" you might read a couple of papers online and then that leads to other stuff, but you aren't reading all the medical books and generally you are at risk of falling into misinformation traps that experienced but not brilliant doctors won't. With plumbing, you flood your house and the insurance refuses to pay.

You go to a doctor and say that you have a pain in the abdomen, the chance of a diagnosis without further investigation is almost nil. I would guess that the severity and location of the pain would be the determining factor in how quickly that investigation takes place. You simply aren't going to read anything helpful on the internet at that point and further on you will be in the hands of a specialist (who may or may not gaf).

Anyway the point of all this is that there really isn't much difference between "easily become more expert" and the Qanon advocate. They both go out and look for information and they both potentially are willing to challenge an "authority" figure.
Rather than trying to become an expert in every subject that flows into our life, we should develop skills that enable us to assess the trustworthiness of the info that we are presented with.

It is easy, because humans are human, which is why there are OSHA and FAA rules about pilots flying too many hours in a week/month, going through a checklist to make sure they didn't miss anything, ensuring clean cockpit communication, and the co-pilot being allowed and encouraged to question a pilot's decisions (ahem*). In the case of flying, many crashes were identified as preventable precisely because the co-pilot/airline culture was one that was afraid or unwilling to question authority.

Obviously not only doctors, you gave a couple excellent examples of why there are various rules mitigating against human error/cognitive biases in this post.

And you still wouldn't show that it's some psychological component and not some tertiary effect from testosterone or lack thereof or other such processes.

I wonder how long they'll take to get it.

You might want to look in to that whole "why it's wrong" thing a bit more. I even provided a link explaining explicitly all the problems with data extrapolation that led to that horrifically flawed interpretation. You obviously didn't read it. You should.

I didn't say they weren't smart.

In Ireland I could become a doctor tomorrow if I wanted.

Like everything else in life you just need the money to train to become one.

Two girls that I went to school with are now doctors they were C/B students at best, their parents paid to put them through private medical schools.

It goes without saying, empiricism doesn’t apply to figuring out the origin of gender.

Because the claim gender is a social construct is just obviously wrong. There might be a small socially constructed aspect to them, but sex roles and expression of characteristics are largely genetic and hormonal, just like in the animal kingdom.

Then it's purely an unscientific claim, but a theological or philosophical one. One of the major reasons people will argue with you over this is because they want their pet metaphysical or sociological theory to have the backing of Science™.

Interesting. Do you think if you had the money to train to become an astronaut, you could become an astronaut? A theoretical physicist? A professional mathematician?