The Shocking Truth about Cardiologists: Millions of Dollars in Malpractice, Unnecessary Surgeries, Psychopaths, Murder and Hitmen

submitted by [deleted] from lesswrong.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Wow, it's too bad that you don't read what I wrote; I never said cardiologists were bad, or good; the only point was it's not black, and white; it's grey. The article in the OP, was a bait, and switch; if you don't read to the end, then it's 'open season' for those that didn't. The point of that article, wasn't so much that cardiologists are actually good, but considering the 'getcha' factor, it seems eerily close to the trend by Google, youtube, and the rest to insure we're all thinking properly in regards to how we digest information.

The article in the OP, is an article designed to create a sense of stupidity of those who don't read to the end, then reference, or post, and don't see what the authors overall viewpoint actually is. The silliness of this, when considering the length of that article, well not everyone has the time to be shown how stupid they are; people do speed read, and also look for the simple overall message.

In my first post, I tried to point out how the article was a little deceiving, although imho, a little more gently, and you responded to my post with 'confirmation bias', as well as a link stating 'falling on deaf ears'. I was only trying to conform to the organic nature of this thread; where by you introduced more material, which I assume you wanted to post to show the possible ways in which you see anyone being deluded with their own thoughts.

Also, I don't see how suggesting people always think for themselves, instead of simply taking the group think prerogative, such as 'everyone else does it, so it's all 100% safe', is incomprehensible. It's funny how so many try to argue that group think, or 'experts' opinions are better than trusting your own mind, thoughts, and intuition, when faced with having to live with the repercussions.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

it seems eerily close to the trend by Google, youtube, and the rest to insure we're all thinking properly in regards to how we digest information.

You've got it in one! There are a couple of key differences, though:

  • That's what the entire website is about; they're not shoving it down people's throats on unrelated sites using their power as site owners.
  • A politically uncharged topic was chosen, as opposed to one where people actually believe, for possibly legitimate reasons, that the people in question are bad.
  • It predates the "trend" by a few years.

The article […] is designed to create a sense of stupidity of those who don't read to the end,

Sorry; this was entirely my fault. No, it's not. It's trying to prove a point about flaws in human cognition, so people can learn to compensate for that and become less wrong. I deliberately misrepresented it for reasons that I'm struggling to justify now.

then reference, or post, and don't see what the authors overall viewpoint actually is.

No. It's really, really not that. Sorry, I didn't even think this topic was politically charged. This is entirely my fault. I know of nobody who's using this blog like that, other than me.

In my first post, I tried to point out how the article was a little deceiving,

Part I is completely deceiving. But Part II isn't the deceiving part. The whole point of the article is that all of the examples in Part I aren't evidence that cardiologists are generally bad, and aren't evidence that cardiologists are generally good; they just aren't good evidence.

people do speed read, and also look for the simple overall message.

That article didn't have a simple overall message, because the articles on that site generally aren't written like that.

in which you see anyone being deluded with their own thoughts.

Also, I don't see how suggesting people always think for themselves, instead of simply taking the group think prerogative

Oh, shit. This backfired. This backfired.

Hey, I'll get back to you on this. But if you just ignore the specific examples, you'll see that the article is agreeing with you there.

than trusting your own mind, thoughts, and intuition,

Which are flawed in a known way, and easy to manipulate, assuming bad actors, or frequently get things wrong in everyday life.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Oh Wizz,

I can share something with you that should set your mind at ease in regards to 'helping people better themselves in regards to learning, communication, and life in general', it's the most true colloquial saying I've experienced:
"You cannot fix Stupid"

I try to embrace that saying in all aspects, with respect to others that either may not have the real mental acuity, or perhaps haven't ever been able to for whatever causation, have a clear vision of subject matter at hand.

Meaning, I try to break things semi-gently, try to learn where someone is coming from, and compare what I know of their life story, to that which I know through experience, so as to better express common personal understandings of communication. We all may share a common language, but interpretation beyond that is far more complex.

No matter how hard we try, any of us, we cannot change someone else, as another colloquial saying goes,'you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink'.

The irony for many though, is they think they can help others when others never asked for help; there's a saying for this too, but my point was simple, sometimes things are just without reason, or answer as to why, and acceptance of a given reality is just that, accepting for what it is, how it is, and that perhaps the flaws we see could be with ourselves. On that note, exploration of thought is awesome!

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It may be true that you cannot fix stupid. But you're not stupid. I'm not stupid. JasonCarswell isn't stupid. Despite his obsession with calling me a shill, I don't think Tom_Bombadil is too stupid either (though I've given up on trying to "fix" that for now).

Yet we're all falling for the same stupid traps in reasoning. When I first arrived here, I was berating JasonCarswell for being so stupid as to believe something that was Wrong™, because there wasn't enough evidence to prove it when P(0). I insisted to myself that I actually was paying attention to the many pieces of evidence I was being shown, but I wasn't. (I'm still not, but at least I acknowledge that and stay out of such debates now.)

/u/Tom_Bombadil (mentioning you here out of politeness), I think, is caught in a Happy Death Spiral about me being a shill. There was certainly sufficient evidence to start with that I was – I was repeating stuff and arguing from a position of ignorance with surprising enthusiasm – but the evidence for that hypothesis has dwindled and the evidence against has mounted, yet now you're left with his user page never being free of an accusation, while nothing I can do will change his mind. I think that that is sad.

I think you can guess my motives now. I rarely behave accordingly, because I'm not great at this, but I'm improving. One day, I hope to be able to help others.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting, and on that note, I don't think anyone's completely stupid, but I do take the saying to heart; to contemplate as a 2 way street. The reason being is that it forces me to remember my comprehension isn't the next person's; meaning to truly communicate may take a different approach case, by case. World leaders know this, hence when speaking the language necessary at the time, they'll still have a translator familiar with local culture so as to fully grasp any culturally specific nuances.

One quick last question though, you said, 'Yet we're all falling for the same stupid traps in reasoning', can you clarify this, and how so?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You seem to be better at picking up on them than me, actually; lots of what you're saying is plainly-spoken wisdom.

I'm taking about these sorts of traps (apologies for the LessWrong link spam): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 They're really stupid traps, and yet I look back at my previous behaviour and see even just the ones I've learned about everywhere… and I look back at how I behaved 10 minutes ago and see it too.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Big strides wizz; you've got a chance! Self reflection, and knowing yourself, I think is one key to a better argument; also being able to concede any given viewpoint to better information is good as well.

Let me ask though, it looks as though you deleted your original post, is this correct, and does it still leave the subsequent posts visible to the general reader; what does it mean to delete 'author' from the op?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It just means that it won't show up as from me, and won't show up on the normal listings (because it's trash and should never have been posted), but it's still visible on the site in every other way.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey wizz, next time, if you don't mind, let's discuss it before deletion. I kinda realized that this isn't in the 'normal listings', which means it's somewhat blind. Having said that though, let me relay, in many ways, I can see benefits from a thread like this.

I do subscribe to a lot of things, and at the same time I don't. To give you perspective of what I'm talking about, an excellent topic for 'conspiracyundone', are those infamous 'fema coffins'.

They're not even the right size for mass burial; you should research that; as far as I can tell, they literally are just casket/coffin liners. Yet, it drove, and still drives conspiracy theories. An interesting caveat, I knew the gal who 'discovered' them, she was 'different'.