This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Revealed preferences in the real world: black doctors.
I wonder if anyone has studied this? What is going to happen to all the black doctors who are being admitted to med school with inferior credentials and who will likely be socially promoted through residency/licensing as well.
I'm sure a large degree of affirmative action has already affected the supply of doctors, but the post-Great Awokening world seems to have taken that to a new level. Apparently rates of test-failing have increased by nearly 10x in some subjects at UCLA's medical school post 2020.
https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/1793657774767022569
This is obviously forbidden information. I wonder how many schools will simply cover it up and graduate people as normal despite failures.
I hate to say it, but if I or a loved one was seriously ill, I would try my best to get a non-black doctor. If I wanted the best, I'd probably follow Peter Griffin's advice. I imagine others have similar revealed preferences that we would never admit in public. In the future, will black doctors magically have tons of open appointments while the cue to see Dr. Rosenblatt grows ever longer? I think probably.
It's irrelevant because no one actually cares about their doctor's academic credentials. Maybe fail rates are higher at UCLA but UCLA is hard to get into to begin with, so I imagine the coursework is harder than at a place like NEOMED. And there are already schools of osteopathy that seem to attract people who couldn't get into MD programs. I'd be willing to bet that if I were to take a random poll few people would be able to tell me where their doctor even went to med school let alone how highly that school is regarded or what their grades were. Like almost everything else, once you get your first job your education is pretty much irrelevant.
You'd be surprised how much academic pedigree "matters," plenty of people don't care but you'll find soccer moms, educated people, the neurotic and all kinds of others very insistent on a "good doctor from a good school with good reviews on google," despite how often many of those disconnect from reality. For us it can matter because certain of jobs (like being a program director) may be essentially closed off to you without training at a "good" institution. Now, again this isn't necessarily reality based but it matters to a lot of people.
What you might find more interesting is that programs don't really work like undergrad or other fields. The preclinical half of med school is essentially the same country wide, in a large part because students have settled on a half dozen ultra high quality learning resources and ignore whatever the hell their school is trying to do. Pass rates for the exams (which can be using standardized exams but don't need to be) and boards (standardized) are higher at higher tier schools because the students are better. Therefore fail rates jumping is a huge huge black mark.
The other half of medical school is clinicals which uses standardized exams and evaluations from preceptors to determine your grade. The evaluations can get more program dependent and may actually have deflation, but this is also where variation in educational quality comes in since most schools pre-clinicals are basically the same* these days.
This is a gross simplification but for the purposes of this discussion should do.
So to speak
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's the old way of thinking under how things used to be. They are no longer that way, and how people think about it will change.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe not for their general practitioner or dermatologist or whatever. But if you get cancer or need brain surgery or something, then people care about the credentials of their oncologist or surgeon.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not elite enough in any respect to really merit an elite doctor. I go to the doctors' office nearest my house. My doctor is a nice Indian lady. Maybe she's good, maybe she's not, who knows.
My doctor is an African immigrant. Which as HBD enjoyers have informed me means he is probably an unusually high IQ individual.
Subjectively he seems competent enough to me. And by importing an African some American medical program got to juice their diversity stats. Win, win.
More options
Context Copy link
I encourage this attitude, it's extremely hard to know if your doctor is good or not because the things that are available for a patient to know are generally customer service things that are often extremely uncoupled from actual medical knowledge and practice ability. Very common for people with good customer service skills to be bad doctors.
Unless having bad customer service correlates with being a good doctor (House was right?) then it seems like it would still make sense to search for one with good reviews.
I would wager that all things equal the more acerbic personality will have higher skills (otherwise how to compete?)
More options
Context Copy link
It does, it's very common for patients to ask for things they don't need or for things that may be bad for them (classic examples are controlled substances and antibiotics). People don't like being told things like "just wait out the infection, it is viral" or "well I know you are in pain, but actually the narcotics are bad for you." People who just prescribe like crazy get better reviews.
Inpatient things can be a bit more different, but those encounters don't generally result in reviews.
And that's not counting things like psychiatry where a good psychiatrist is always going to get angry reviews from certain classes of patients.
The classic example that comes to mind here is "Have you tried eating healthier, getting more exercise, and losing weight?"
"Your diabetes is so advanced your limbs are falling off." "Stop fat shaming me."
You are taking that cartoon out of context. It isn't saying that the patrient's arm fell off because of diabetes. It's showing the patient complaining about one thing, and the doctor telling him routine boilerplate about losing weight that has nothing whatsoever to do with the patient's problem. The patient is not ignoring the doctor's advice about weight, the doctor is ignoring the patient's complaint by mentioning weight.
Note that the cartoon nowhere says "diabetes" or "fat shaming".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"I came for my Vicodin for my joint pain, not to be fat-shamed, you sexist pig!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link