AverageBear
Liberal NPC
No bio...
User ID: 2549
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
7mo ago
It's going to be pretty hard to find cases where there's no egregious harm because they would normally go undetected. And once there is harm, your company is probably insolvent and not worth pursuing by OAG.
If you're pointing out that this only got investigated because it's Trump, I agree. Unfortunately for him, the investigation uncovered a crime.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
He motivated "Democrat" voters so much, they sometimes voted multiple times in different states!
This is a specific claim I haven't seen yet. Could you link the evidence?
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
There are gender non-conforming children, gay children, those who struggle to develop a gendered identity in a social world, and ultimately those who struggle with body or gender dysphoria but there is no evidence that there are 'trans-children'.
I'm confused by this. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
Are you saying trans adults exist? If so, when does the transition from non-trans child to trans adult occur?
Even if you argue that being transexual is a mental illness - why would only adults have this illness?
I'd be more concerned if a black doctor was treating me since I know about how much AA they receive
A study on obstetric patient outcomes found that the residency program the doctor attended had a significant effect on patient outcomes. The best residency programs had a 10% chance of complications, vs 13% for the worst.
Adjusting for medical exam scores didn't change the results.
Your reasoning is backwards here. If you believe a black doctor is receiving preferential treatment (such as better residency placement, despite having lower exam scores), you should choose the black doctor.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
6mo ago
the Civil War was more about Federal control over the states than it was about slavery.
I don't buy it. The only reason the southern states feared federal control was because they feared it would be used to end slavery.
basis of this refusal was of course slavery, but it could have been something else.
Could I ask what that something else could possibly be? It would have to be an extreme wedge issue that the seceding states considered an existential risk to their continued way of life.
In an alternate timeline where the southern states remained in the union but abolished slavery, the only thing I could think of would be the enfranchisement of former slaves.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
7mo ago
Right - and his personal guarantee is based on the valuation of his assets, which he overstated.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
10mo ago
Could you provide some supporting evidence for why you believe this movie's criticism is due to separate conspiracies by Disney, the State Department, and the CIA?
How does Disney benefit from attacking a movie that, at the time of the rolling stones article, had earned 25% of what Indiana Jones had done at the domestic box office?
Why would the CIA be particularly troubled by this movie showing the cartels involved in human trafficking, but not others?
Why would the State Department's main lever of shutting a movie down to be releasing negative critical reviews after release, as opposed to a myriad of powers it could presumably exercise for a movie by a former DHS employee that was partially filmed in California?
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
6mo ago
I'm skeptical about this. I did some brief searching and most research seems to have pretty clear definitions for what constitutes political violence.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
7mo ago
Do you think in a world where his choice was between a politically unreliable black woman who might run for election, or a non-descript white guy who wouldn't rock the boat, he would still choose the former? I don't.
The pool of "warm reliable bodies" is large enough where he can choose whatever arbitrary conditions he wants to score some political points.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
7mo ago
Actually this is in civil court not criminal which heavily indicates how weak of a case it is.
That's not true. The NY attorney general doesn't have the authority to indite Trump on criminal charges.
Similar to the SEC (whose cases are also civil), they refer their investigations to a separate authority who might be interested in pursuing any criminal charges in addition to the civil case.
I believe the OAG has referred this case to the Manhattan DA, though as they're already prosecuting Trump for a separate case, I'm not sure if they'll decide to file criminal charges.
I briefly read through the ruling so I might have missed it, but how are you certain the over-valuation of these properties didn't affect the terms or availability of any loan/insurance/financial agreement?
The bank doesn’t care I exaggerated.
The bank absolutely does care about your debt-to-asset ratio for a multitude of reasons, but more importantly they care if you're a liar.
A $10 million loan to someone with $1-2b in assets is likely a low risk for default. A $10 million loan to someone who lies on their financial statements is a reputational and financial risk.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
This protest had 15 people between two aligned groups. I'm not convinced you need to be a master statesmen to gather these kinds of numbers.
I did another brief search and found Polhaus fundraising as of 2020.. I'm sure he has been around for awhile.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
The Sengoku Jidai was a huge breakdown of central authority, civil war, and constant factional warfare.
The closest modern equivalent would probably be a narco-state like Brazil or Colombia. I'm not sure you would call these societies well-functioning.
Not sure if this is the correct spot for site feedback.
Can/should we prevent posts that you reported from showing up in your own "The Motte needs your help" queue?
If I report something, I prefer other unbiased users judge if the report makes sense.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
Appreciate the link, thank you.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
9mo ago
The actual riots were incited by Federal provocateurs, it being well-established now that many of the people who entered the Capitol were literal agents for the FBI.
Where is this well-established? A cursory Google search only returned that the FBI revoked the security clearance of one agent who joined the mob.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
9mo ago
Personally I am sick to death of hearing about trans issues and if I notice a game bringing it up in literally any manner I will react negatively.
Isn't this unfair to the game's creator? I can understand being tired of hamfisted political insertions, but there are surely scenarios where a trans character's identity can serve the story.
Imagine a space game where the terrifying Xenos, believing themselves to be benevolent uplifters and not understanding the concept of human individuality, begin abducting and converting humans en-masse into biological-machine hybrids.
Maybe you capture a group of these mecha-humans and interrogate them, one of whom used to be trans. I could see that providing interesting narrative insight.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
9mo ago
The first problem is that the idea that the residency programs themselves act as filters doesn't even occur them. It shows how much these people are stuck in a bubble.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by filter here. They pretty explicitly call this out as a possibility - which is why they account for exam scores.
A hypothesis that is very easy to check - find some of the worst doctors that managed to hang on to a licence, send them to the best residency programs, and see what happens.
Why bother with testing the residency program at all in this scenario? You should see doctors from the best medical schools performing considerably better than those from lower ranked ones - but that isn’t really true either.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
9mo ago
I'm not really sure what your "gotcha" is. You only get into a residency program after you've passed the USMLE and per the paper:
We found no evidence for a major selection effect in residency program output. If programs differ substantially in the quality of physicians they graduate, much of that difference might be attributable to the initial quality of the trainees they attract, but we found little difference in effects after adjustment for individual physicians' standardized medical licensure examination Z scores. This suggests either that these scores do not capture medical students' clinical ability or that skills developed during residency training are more important for producing good maternal outcomes than skills developed during medical school, and residency programs differ in skill development.
If we could feasibly let everybody who passed their exams into the best residency programs - we would. It would probably lead to better patient outcomes.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
7mo ago
Doesn't really feel icky to me. The selection criteria for the appointment seems to be a reliable and unelectable Dem to keep the seat warm until the next election.
If you can do that and appoint a diverse candidate that will please part of your base, seems like a win-win.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
6mo ago
Tide of public opinion" was creation of mass media that decided in Feb 2022 to play up this war as much as possible
Alternatively, "major historical enemy catastrophically fails to invade tiny neighbor" doesn't require a conspiracy to be a captivating news story.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
9mo ago
left wing people are more narcissistic
This is examining left-wing authoritarianism. The study mentions similar studies on right-wing authoritarianism finding similar results.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
8mo ago
Yeah, the critique felt a little weak. Specifically because the primary critique is noted in the study itself:
These findings are based on exploratory analyses in a modestly sized sample that represents a high-functioning subset (e.g., 31% screen-in rate) of the total homeless population in Vancouver. Thus, our results may not extend to people who are chronically homeless or experience higher severity of substance use, alcohol use, or psychiatric symptoms.
What would have been a more convincing approach would be instead focusing on this statement found in both the news story and press release, but missing from the study itself:
The study did not include participants with severe levels of substance use, alcohol use or mental health symptoms, but Dr. Zhao pointed out that most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes. Rather, they are largely invisible. They sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.
This statement does a lot of work in justifying the policy implications of cash infusions because if 31% of the homeless passed their entrance requirements, and it's a representative sample, then 31% or more of the homeless at-large could be conceivably impacted.
I have no idea if his assertion is true or not, but that seems the most potentially dubious framing.
There was also that whole opening an impeachment inquiry without a house vote, which he claimed he wouldn't do shortly before doing it.
And when that failed to win him the support he needed, after relying on Democrat votes to pass the CR, said the next day the Dems "tried to do everything they could to not let it pass". The latter was apparently played to Democrats in the meeting where they decided to vote against him.
Still, who knows if this works out for them aside from making the Republicans look chaotic for a bit.
Jordan Peterson deserved it.
You may be aware that an Ontario court recently ruled that Jordan Peterson is required to undergo social media training. This was discussed in a previous CWR, and the general vibe from that discussion was that this was a political attempt to silence or punish Peterson for unpopular political opinions, but I disagree. Instead, I think Peterson genuinely crossed the line with regard to the professional conduct required of him.
First, this argument rests on the belief that it's ethical for certain professions to impose limits on practitioners' freedom of speech. We've decided that certain professions require some degree of public trust and accountability. We expect lawyers to provide correct legal advice, auditors and adjustors to provide unbiased reviews of the facts, and physicians to treat any patient equally, regardless of their personal beliefs. However, we establish limits on this, generally agreeing that these professionals are individuals and are free to express their opinions when it does not cause direct harm to their profession, their clients, or the public at large.
Accepting this, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, is responsible and obligated to investigate and act on complaints against its members when acting as a clinical psychologist. Now the question is whether or not Peterson made these statements as a clinical psychologist, and whether or not his statements violated professional standards. Specifically:
The Complaints
From the court's decision, which I highly recommend you read yourself, these are the complaints against Peterson:
The Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee ("ICRC"), in their investigation, determined that some of these complaints were valid, and others were not. Specifically, they determined that statements a and c, while provocative and inflammatory, could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody, and did not rise to the level of "disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional" conduct.
They argue that the remaining statements do, but this is where I disagree.
The most relevant complaints are b. and f, and including the other statements in their decision cheapens their reasoning. By focusing on the more subjective criteria of "disgraceful" and "dishonorable", they miss the low-hanging fruit of "unprofessional".
Between statement B and F, Peterson disparages a former client as "vindictive", dismisses their complaints as a "pack of lies", and refers to a fellow practicing physician as "criminal" for performing an otherwise legal surgery.
Regardless of his political opinions, these statements seem to easily pass the standard of "unprofessional" conduct you would expect of a psychologist.
Past Complaints, and Aggravating Factors.
Peterson has been registered with the college since 1999, and he's no stranger to complaints. To date, this coaching is the first action taken by the ICRC against Peterson with the most recent investigation closing in 2020 with no action taken. 2020 was arguably a "hotter" year for the culture war and the college likely would have had more political cover for any sanctions. So what materially changed?
Peterson's counsel describes him as "a prolific author, podcaster, and YouTube content producer who maintains an active social media presence. In his social and political commentary, Dr. Peterson is often colorful and controversial.” Arguing in effect, that Peterson the social and political commentator is not Peterson the clinical psychologist. And I think this is a fair point because in the conclusion from the 2020 investigation that resulted in no action, the ICRC noted:
In 2020, Peterson's Twitter bio made no mention of his being a clinical psychologist. Peterson, in addressing this at the time, stated he "opted not to advertise this title on his Twitter". However, in 2022, this changed, he added "Clinical psychologist" to his Twitter bio.
Since Peterson effectively stopped practicing in 2016, this was a position of contention by the ICRC. Peterson, in responding to concerns that he continued to publicly identify as a clinical psychologist stated:
If we accept Peterson's reasoning that he continues to practice in a broad and diffuse manner in public - it stands to reason that his primary interactions with the public via his Twitter and podcast appearances should be examined under the lens of the standards expected of a clinical psychologist. And even if you don't agree with this argument, Peterson himself seems to agree based on his rejection of the board's recommendation
Peterson's Counter Proposal
In rejecting the board's recommendation for social media training due to the recurrence risk of unprofessional tone and language, Peterson argues that any social media coaching would be redundant - as he had already taken steps to address these concerns.
I'll quote the relevant section from the decision:
The ICRC, to little surprise, found that his business associates, close family members, and "various professionals", many of whom would have a financial incentive not to restrict Peterson's brand of controversy, were not capable of being independent, and would not examine his behavior through the lens of his obligations as a member of the College.
The Conclusion, and Why You Should Care.
At this point, I've laid out why I think Peterson's statements crossed the line of professional behavior, and why the board was fully justified in taking action against him. Along with outlining his counter-proposal which feels particularly poor.
I'm under no illusion that "social media coaching" is anything but laughably ineffective. Peterson's brand is controversy, and he's unlikely to take any serious advice to heart. In my opinion, the College is already providing Peterson with incredible leeway that would not be granted to less inflammatory members, and his framing of this dispute as a suppression of free speech instead of a professional dispute is incredibly hypocritical for someone who spends so much time pointing this out in others.
But the true nefarious reason I spent time on this write-up, whether you agree with my conclusion or not, is because I didn't see -any- of this discussed previously. As someone whose opinion differs strongly from the average expressed here, I've grown spoiled by the high-effort discussion this community normally generates. It was disheartening to see a culture war topic engaged with so heavily without a cursory discussion of the opposing view.
More options
Context Copy link