site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   25760 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Interesting. I think this would work. Doctor just needs to make brief dot points and print it out. He can also save a copy of the notes to the patient's file (to cover his ass in the event of patient's lying).

Doctors are often lazy and or overworked though, so even though this would be a small amount of work, it would still be a not insignificant thing in the context of cramming even more activities into a 15 minute consultation.

Doctors are often lazy and or overworked though, so even though this would be a small amount of work, it would still be a not insignificant thing in the context of cramming even more activities into a 15 minute consultation.

This is solved by evaluating doctors based on their EMR, at least for outpatient visits. Number of visits must match the number of new EMRs and randomly selected and anonymized EMRs are then evaluated by unaffiliated medical workers against a checklist.

It's pretty common to give print outs like medication information sheets, or something called an "after visit summary." Frequently what happens is that it gets comically enormous and useless as various stakeholders fill it with random bullshit.

Anything more personalized/off the cuff becomes extremely difficult, especially as corporate control of medicine pushes doctors to see more patients faster. Really hard to do when your visits are 15 minutes max and that's supposed to include your charting time.

Frequently what happens is that it gets comically enormous and useless as various stakeholders fill it with random bullshit.

Could you give any examples of "erroneous"? I've certainly seen "enormous"/"useless"/"random bullshit", and burying important truths in so much filler they get ignored might have consequences as bad as falsehoods, but I just don't recall seeing any likely falsehoods. Even the random bullshit is unevidenced rather than obviously untrue, along the lines of "let's put X in the list of possible side effects, as CYA, even though our only evidence for X is that in one study the treatment group reported it almost as often as the control group"...

Not nearly as common as death by volume of paperwork, but an example of actual errors is when practice changes due to new information, and nobody updates the info sheets.

Yeah I was talking about something a bit more personalised for condition management that is tailored to the patient rather than a source sheet ripped straight off webMD. Agreed that there probably isn't time to do this in a 15 minute consult unless the doctor is young really on the ball.

I actually try to find younger GP's for this reason. Many boomer doctors just have not kept up with newer treatments, a professional bedside manner, or technology use.

That approach can be fine for medical (as opposed to surgical specialties - in those you want someone who has some years of physical practice without being too far along in age), although the caution is that medical knowledge changes quickly. I remember within a couple years of starting residency (much less being an attending) some of what I was taught was outdated and it would have been very easy to not notice.

As to your other piece a lot of surgeons (and things like Oncologists) will have ancillary staff who can help generate counseling and additional information for patients in a way that is actually helpful.

This is basically how electronic medical records already work. Good ones have things neatly templated for different sorts of encounters and voice recognition to help speed up documentation. Printouts for patients are typically handled by clerical staff. There are quite a few hospitals that struggle with both implementation and operationalizing workflows to make this actually work, but it's how things are supposed to work. In practice, the IT teams do a middling job of setting things up and training users, the physicians are old and don't want to do the work, the government regulations are burdensome and make the whole thing more cumbersome and unintuitive than it needs to be, and the result is a boomer doctors declaring that computers are stupid.

Yeah I was more aiming for your General Practitioner (GP) in a clinic having a printer at his desk and potentially a notes template with letterhead ready to go. Smash out 5 x 1 line dot points summarising your advice on how to manage their condition and have it auto save into their file.

If it isn't as easy as that it won't get done. You'd be lucky to get some unintelligible scribble notes on a sheet ripped out of a physical notepad even if you requested it.

These five bullet points will get padded out with 10,000 bullet points of ass covering and the end result will be no one reading it because of course the medication is known to the state of California to cause cancer, what isn’t?

This happens a lot in our own fucking notes we used to share mission critical information with each other (called note bloat), pretty much zero reason to assume it will have the smallest usefulness for patient facing stuff (for the reasons you outline).

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