site banner
PaperclipPerfector  27d ago (text post)   25134 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah most of the research industrial complex is bullshit, fair enough.....but the rest of it makes sense.

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. Shit is hard. Part of this is driven by how modern test questions are designed. Little of it is fact recall and questions are mostly second or third order. Some have multiple correct answers and you are supposedly to be figuring out what's most likely and even sometimes essentially from first principles (especially in Step 3). Step 1 is a bit hard to do this in because the material is more basic and it's (well, was) our primary "you get to go somewhere nice after graduation" exam because it happens earlier. Thus the vaguer content, but it does serve a purpose and every question ends up having clinical utility for someone, even if it's just a medical geneticist.

A good chunk of volunteering is bullshit but this requirement (absent the social justice end of things) is meant to establish life experience which you otherwise would not have because career changers are still pretty rare and medical education is all encompassing.

Letters for admission to med school are often the way you describe but letters for residency absolutely should involve someone who knows you well and has seen you work, if that doesn't apply for a student they were doing it wrong.

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.

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.* Keep in mind that this is after multiple filtration points designed to weed out people who aren't good at hard work and studying.

The bar is designed to be acceptable to fail multiple times, law school is not set up exclusively around passing the bar, and while admissions can be rigorous at top institutions it's got nothing on the adderall snorting madness which is med school.

*and while the fail rate is low, failing it fucks you over incredibly, and getting an average score looks you out of entire specialities and regions for residency.

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.

If you fail Step 1 (well back in the day, the new situation is evolving quickly) you are relegated to Family Medicine in a poor location or a malignant Internal Medicine program unless you have something very very strong going for you. The vast majority of students don't want family medicine, and they don't want to be in Iowa, and they don't anything to do with those IM programs.

If you went to medical school to be a surgeon (or a dermatologist, or an oncologist, or to live with your girlfriend in LA) then failing the exam can be pretty catastrophic. Some do drop out after failing "because the dream is dead." Not that I necessarily agree with that decision.

I think if you'd framed it in these terms originally, then I wouldn't have objected.

I agree. Failing your medical licensing exam (as 2% of test takers do) limits your ability to earn $1M/year as an LA plastic surgeon.

Again, any specialty other than (IM/FM, and historically psych) off the table.

Programs that aren't going to violate duty hours (work more than 80 hours a week) off the table.

Good locations (well, other than NYC shitty IM programs, which have high suicide rates) off the table.

Great outcomes are gone yes, as are the good and okay.

And many people go into medicine with sharp expectations as to what they want to do again, "all my life I've wanted to be a surgeon...."

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?

If you sacrificed your college experience and didn't have any fun of any kind in your 20s and took on a half a million dollars in debt in order to become a surgeon then yes, obviously.

As I said in my other comment we don't need to speculate about this. Many medical trainees will refuse to practice in that environment and will drop out or just choose to make less money practicing in a bigger city with a worse patient population or job.

Granted your specific example isn't a good one because being in mid-Atlantic is attractive and there are a few nice healthcare providers in the area. Change it to anywhere in Indiana.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats