ebrso
2yr ago
Imagine a student getting plastered and, noticing her RA's MAGA cap, calling the RA a "Nazi" two hundred times.
In your hypothetical, the student is characterizing being a Nazi as detestable. In the real-life event, the student is characterizing being Black as detestable.
I'm skeptical of widespread American anti-Black racism narratives, and I don't think this case supports them (except weakly at the margin). I think it's possible (although unlikely) that the White girl doesn't harbor meaningful animus towards Black people, and that she was just grasping clumsily for an epithet that carried a powerful valence. I also assume the White girl has some fairly serious emotional problems (as do many people, such as myself) which were exacerbated by alcohol use.
Nevertheless, the White girl's behavior was grotesque. I have no objections at all to expelling her from school.
ebrso
2yr ago
"Characterizing X as detestable" is just far, far too much cognition to attribute to someone this drunk.
If I say that Martin Shkreli is an asshole, I'm probably not exercising too much cognition. I'm certainly not consciously/explicitly characterizing anuses as bad. Indeed, there's a reasonable case that assholes (anuses) are good - after all, what's the alternative? Still, in context, there's some clear background knowledge: assholes are detestable.
What bothers me is the idea of expelling students because they said a naughty word (yes, even if they said it 200 times). If the line between expulsion and not-expulsion is "did you say a racial slur," that violates my intuitions regarding the importance of freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry in institutions of higher education.
So you're suggesting that broad principles of free speech require public colleges to treat student speech in a content-neutral way, with no special treatment for the communication of ideas we find abhorrent, including racial slurs? That seems fine, although it's not the position most public American colleges seem to take (certainly not in practice). It's hard to imagine how this would even function if implemented literally. How could student work possibly be evaluated in this context?
ebrso
1yr ago
hockey has long had a culture of policing things that aren't quite illegal, but considered excessive via player-based enforcement in fights.
Why are fights between athletes considered just part of the game, rather than serious crimes? I assume that if I were to take a swing at someone in my office, in front of a million spectators and filmed from fifty angles, I would (quite appropriately) face jail time. But this doesn't seem to hold for, e.g., baseball players.
ebrso
2yr ago
Using suboptimal methods because it just feels good is perhaps the most common failure mode for everything in all of history.
I think this quip is question-begging, and just serves to muddy the waters by conflating several distinct phenomena:
-
Conflict between a society's short-term and long-term preferences.
-
Conflict between the preferences of distinct groups in a society.
-
How individuals/groups establish preferences, and how they understand and express these preferences.
There are important questions of fact involved:
-
Are whole-language approaches more effective for teaching students literacy?
-
Should effectiveness in teaching students literacy be the unique factor determining instructional approach?
-
Are teachers well-positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of various instructional approaches?
-
Do teachers have insight into how they arrive at their own preferences?
-
Do teachers misrepresent the justifications for their preferences? Do they do so knowingly?
-
Are whole-language approaches easier/more fun for teachers?
-
Do teachers prefer whole-language approaches because they're more pleasant for teachers?
-
Do students have effective political advocates for their interests?
-
Etc.
ebrso
1yr ago
you have yet to acknowledge that American doctors don't make what you think they do. The average American doctor probably has a lower net worth than the average Australian doctor . . . Doctors have relatively low net worths into their 50s, here's a citation. https://www.bfadvisors.com/net-worth-by-age-for-doctors/
This is grossly misleading. The first line of the article is literally, "When it comes to wealth-generating occupations, physicians usually make the top of the list." The graph shows that 50% of doctors ages 45-49 have a net worth of at least $1M, and that average physician comp is $350k/year. I appreciate that American doctors choose partners at Goldman Sachs as their peer cohort for compensation comparisons, but this is not based in reality.
Decreasing doctor salaries also does nothing substantial to decrease U.S. health care costs.
Physician compensation is roughly 9% of U.S. health care costs per here. If you slashed physician comp 50% (so that physicians were "only" averaging $175K/year), U.S health care costs would be reduced by 4.5%, or about $250B across the U.S. per year (4.5% of $5T total annual health care spend). A few $250B here, a few $250B there . . . pretty soon we're talking about real money.
And your solution [of importing physicians from other countries in order to drive down physician costs] seems to me to be wildly immoral and you make no effort to defend it.
Again, Is that your true rejection? If so, would you be satisfied with importing international physicians if those physicians pledged to remit some of their American comp to their countries of origin? Because I'm sure they'd be happy to do so.
ebrso
1yr ago
You ignore the DNA evidence that Palestinians are the direct ancestors of ancient Canaanite and Levantine inhabitants of the land, and doubly ignore that Ashkenazim — the chief instigators of Zionism — are half-European in DNA.
How are Ashkenazim "the chief instigators of Zionism"? Mizrahi Jews in Israel make up over 60% of the nation's Jewish population, and their politics are to the right relative to the country.
ebrso
1yr ago
The money is meant to compensate [Black and Hispanic members of the class]. Why would white applicants have a claim on the money?
I never suggested White applicants should have a claim to anything, I only suggested that this outcome potentially invites an equal protection challenge. If a Black guy and a White guy sit for the same test, and both fail, but legal recourse is available to the Black guy alone, based exclusively on immutable racial characteristics, then it seems to me (a non-lawyer, but a member of the educated laity) that the White guy has clearly been denied equal protection of the laws.
"Four teachers in 1996 first filed a suit over the test. . . . The test was ruled discriminatory in 2012 by the third Manhattan federal judge to handle the case — which included a two-month nonjury trial and repeated trips to an appeals court."
That sounds like a vigorous defense to me.
I don't see what bearing the length of the process has on the vigor of the procedure.
The plaintiffs were not paid not to work. Presumably most of them worked at other jobs since 1996 (when the lawsuit was originally filed). They are being compensated for the damages incurred as a result of the ostensible discrimination. If I dropped a hammer on your head while working on a roof, and as a result you had to quit your job as an accountant and work retail, would you frame a lawsuit settlement as paying you not to work?
I don't stand by my characterization of the lawsuit as paying teachers "to not work," although incidentally, NYC has done just this before. But certainly the plaintiffs were paid in return for nothing. If the settlement is intended merely to compensate for damages (i.e., make the plaintiffs "whole," i.e., to leave them in a similar state to where they might have been had the injury never occurred), then why wouldn't class members be eligible solely for the difference between what they actually earned and what they would have earned as NYC teachers (with adjustments for factors like difficulty of position)? If a hammer falls on my head at the fault of my employer, and I go and take another paid job while continuing to receive a paycheck from my original employer, then it's even better for me than payment explicitly for not working!
Did you change the link?
I haven't edited the original post since publishing.
ebrso
1yr ago
From the article
One professor said that a student in the operating room could not identify a major artery when asked, then berated the professor for putting her on the spot.
She knows literally less than a decent butcher.
The qualifier major is carrying a lot of weight here. There are thousands of named arteries in the human body, ranging from the aorta (which every medical student in clinical rotations really should be able to recognize, at least when it's exposed to plain view) to tiny branches that exhibit tremendous variation across individuals, and which even the absolute best students (and expert physicians) won't be able to reliably identify in cadaveric dissection (never mind in the operating theater). Viewing angle, anatomical posture, and similar (physical) factors can also make it much easier or harder to identify individual vessels.
So, even if we take this anonymous source's claim at face value (i.e., we assume that some incident occurred in which a medical trainee failed to identify a "major" artery on request, and then reacted badly), how should we understand the term "major," and why do we assume that there was a clear presentation? (And of course, one case, however egregious, doesn't establish a trend.)
ebrso
1yr ago
Let's accept at face value that White jocks / cheerleaders support Trump. Then I still think there's a category confusion hiding in the insistence that analogies should "resemble observable reality."
I'll give an example. Say my friend were deciding between studying Russian and studying Hindi. Now say I tell him he should study Hindi because, per Wayne Gretzky, great hockey players "skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."
Would it really undermine my argument to learn that more great hockey players study Russian than Hindi?
ebrso
2yr ago
No. In my hypothetical and in the real-life event, a drunk person chooses the word that seems most likely to offend the person they are confronting.
In the same way that kids telling their little brother that he's adopted don't hate orphans, they just like teasing their little brother.
I think this example supports my position. Yes, the older brother is trying to rile the younger brother. But there's also common knowledge across the participants that the older brother holds that it's undesirable to be adopted.
ebrso
1yr ago
Every physician I know who doesn't have a financial stake in midlevels (and isn't in admin) tells their friends and family to only see doctors whenever possible. That's for a reason.
Every acupuncturist I know tells me to see an acupuncturist. It's funny how that works.
Physicians spend years being abused and called idiots in order to develop caution, intellectual humility.
I don't consider American doctors as a model for intellectual humility. Do you?
ebrso
1yr ago
Figuring out the cause of dropping out is hard because people lie for ego defense reasons which complicates matters, I do know people who have claimed some other kind of hardship but it was academics.
I mean, sure, if someone leaves an academic program, then on some level it's related to academics. But even in cases where someone's involuntarily separated from their program due to bad grades, those bad grades don't necessarily indicate a failure of earlier-stage preparation or a deficit of natural ability. Often, bad grades are downstream from emotional problems, or from a general ambivalence about the training. I speak from some personal experience here, albeit outside of medicine (I don't think this is simply "ego defense").
I don't want to get too distracted from my main point, which is that, based on data and personal observation, I'm skeptical that American physician training requires as much intellectual horse power (or even hard work) as American physicians maintain it does. I do think it requires a high level of conscientiousness, which is surely related, but also different.
ebrso
1yr ago
NPs have 500 hours of training and doctors have 10k-20k. That gap is enormous and even if each hour of training is mostly worthless....it's a lot.
This seems to refer to clinical hours. Per wikipedia: During their studies, nurse practitioners are required to receive a minimum of 500 hours of clinical training in addition to the clinical hours required to obtain their RN. Let's leave aside the RN component. If clinical hours are the focus, then a typical NP who's been practicing professionally for 10 years has more than a physician who's been practicing professionally for 5 years.
This conversation brings to mind Yud's Is That Your True Rejection. Doctors are better than NPs, they have more clinical experience. No? Well then doctors are better, they have better outcomes. No? Well then doctors are better, they cost the system less money. No? Well then, doctors are better, their training is more rigorous. No? Well then, doctors must be better for some other reason.
ebrso
1yr ago
Medical exams are hard (and not like most exams you see), someone who was in the top 5% of their class at a respectable undergrad institution can spend two years studying for Step 1 and still barely pass it.
In 2021, before USMLE Step 1 moved to pass-fail, 98% of 1st-time takers from MD programs passed per here. By comparison, the first-time pass rate for the California bar exam (to practice law in the state) is roughly 45% per here.
Yeah, I think in ice hockey especially, fights aren't seen as pathological, but rather as an important part of a self-policing culture. I can understand that. What I don't understand is why the local district attorney would take that stance (and not prosecute offenders).
Baseball doesn't have the same opportunities to deliberately inflict injury within the standard ruleset of the game, so the same sort of culture never developed.
Interestingly, and consistent with your theory, my sense is that the proximate cause for most professional baseball fights is a perception of inappropriately aggressive play on the part of the opponent: high-and-inside fastball, sliding into 2nd base with spikes up, and so on. It's also interesting to me that in both baseball and ice hockey, the culture broadly prohibits using weapons in fights. The first thing a hockey / baseball player will do at the start of his fight is throw down his stick / bat. Again, this is consistent with the theory that fights serve to self-police / enforce expectations for conduct.
ebrso
1yr ago
I think a major problem is that there’s a lot of wiggle room for motte and Bailey around the issue. When people want sympathy they talk about a guy just down on his luck. When they want to remove them, they’re drug using street shitters.
I agree that people describe homeless populations (indeed, all populations) as more or less sympathetic depending on their own sympathies. But I hardly see how that (alone) has anything to do with mottes / baileys. Not every form of intellectual dishonesty should be shoehorned into a motte-and-bailey framework.
So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
ebrso
1yr ago
[America has] 330 million people. A million [drug overdose] deaths in 10 years isn't even coming close to affecting the median.
Of course the median American didn't die from a drug overdose in the last decade. But if knowing a drug addict is to be affected, then I suspect the median American has indeed been affected by drug abuse.
Sure, I don't doubt that many of the people you think about in consulting / finance / tech at even 2nd-rate places like Accenture / Deloitte / Oracle will make six figures as starting salaries.
Still, statistics show that the average American working in the consulting, finance, or tech industries will never make six figures - even if we restrict attention to the college educated. I think you're just really out-of-touch to not recognize that. This is wrong. Maybe I'm the one who's out of touch. The median American salaries in tech and finance are both around $100k, suggesting that most people will attain them at some point. The median consulting salary is still lower than $100k.
ebrso
1yr ago
I think this nicely acknowledges some of the individual variation / tradeoffs involved. I've noticed a trend in life-advice-giving where people are often wrong, but never in doubt. So, you'll have someone ask whether he should pursue his dream of quitting accounting to become a painter, and one person will write back that he definitely, 100% should, and the next person will respond that he definitely, 100% shouldn't.
I don't understand the "clashing rocks" comparison. I understand (from Google) that it's a reference to the Symplegades from Greek myth, but what the relevance is of that story is lost on me.
ebrso
11mo ago
Kamala is not going to win. She's going to say things like "space is neat" and "who doesn't love a big yellow schoolbus" on the debate stage.
These pithy, assured pronouncements are tedious and call to mind the expression often wrong, but never in doubt. The betting market consensus now is that Harris has a nearly 40% chance of winning in November; it's moronic to declare that "Kamala is not going to win."
ebrso
10mo ago
One idea I've seen is having a multiplicity of status hierarchies . . . In practice, we could have that now, but we don't.
My instinct is that we absolutely have a multiplicity of status hierarchies operating today in a largely independent fashion. For example, there are plenty of American sub-groups in which status and money don't seem closely aligned. If you're a full professor of history at a large state university, then your status among colleagues will derive primarily from your research output and its reception. If you're a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn, then your status in the synagogue will derive from your knowledge of Torah. If you're a Texas adolescent boy, then your status at school will derive from how many touchdowns you throw. These qualities are not closely related to earnings (if they're even related at all).
ebrso
11mo ago
ebrso
1yr ago
Great outcomes are gone yes, as are the good and okay.
Just to be clear, is your position that a life making $200k/year practicing internal medicine in a small town 50 miles outside Philadelphia is not an okay outcome? Why not?
ebrso
1yr ago
I mean what I say quite literally, you can be a top of your class science student at a reasonably good institution, study for two years specifically for the test (including a multi-month "dedicated" period where your only job is to study for this test), spend thousands of dollars on incredibly well designed test prep material and that still might not be enough.
That might qualifier is doing an awful lot of work here. The same student might also get crushed by a falling piano on the way to the test center. The point of statistics is to evaluate likelihoods, not possibilities.
and while the [USMLE Step 1] fail rate is low, failing it fucks you over incredibly
This seems hysterical (marked by hysteria). The same data set showed that re-takers had an almost 70% chance of passing. Substantially anyone who manages to drag himself across the finish line will be able to make $200k/year as a GP in a high status profession (more if they're willing to live outside a major city, where the money will go further). I don't know in what universe this qualifies as being fucked over incredibly. Even the small minority of medical students who can't gain licensure to practice will still have fine life outcomes, by and large.
I lost my beloved younger brother a few years ago to drug addiction. He was 35. He struggled for years (and I mean really struggled) to stop using heroin, with some periods of success. When he was using drugs, he would lie and steal. But even during those times, he was always a very generous person when he could be. He was very sensitive (in some ways, I think this was actually a burden for him), and he made friends easily. He was funny and smart (which was perhaps another burden). He had very serious depression and anxiety his entire life. I'm sure my parents will never recover from the loss.
My point here is that many of the drug addicts you despise are actually struggling desperately. Most have had difficult lives. Some have loved ones that care deeply about them and want to see them get healthy. Others don't have anyone in the world who cares about them, either because they never had a family, or because their families died, or because they alienated them through their behaviors.
There are important conversations to be had about whether drug addiction is more of a choice or more of a disease. And there are conversations to be had about the balance between community interests and the interests of those with substance abuse disorders, and how community burdens should be fairly distributed. And there are conversations about which policies or actions actually help individuals with substance abuse disorders, versus which policies are counter-productive because they just enable or encourage these disorders.
But calling someone "dysfunctional scum" or "druggie" or "biowaste" isn't the way to start these conversations. That's the kind of language people use to dehumanize others. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
More options
Context Copy link