I was wondering why Scott was unfairly picking on cardiologists. This is an interesting phenomenon I hadn’t noticed before.
If you read Part I of this post and found yourself nodding along, thinking “Wow, cardiologists are real creeps, there must be serious structural problems in the cardiology profession, something must be done about them,” consider it evidence that a sufficiently motivated individual – especially a journalist! – can make you feel that way about any group.
There are a list of actual stories and descriptions of creepy sexual harassment. It was enough for me to frown and think to recommend people to choose other branches of medical doctor other than cardiologists. Although I consider myself sensitive to anecdotal evidence and confounding variables, my inner disclaimer didn’t make it explicit this time.
So wow, the last paragraph is talking directly to me.
I suggest this society help people with this issue, to the same degree as poverty, as it is hard to make out of it alone.
This happens probably because I assumed he is certain about the topic and I didn’t doubt. His message was clear: “Cardiologists are bad.” Later I could break this statement because he didn’t believe it at first place, as well as the bad reasoning. Notice he pulled the anecdotal evidence again, this time to defend the cardiologist side. We can refute him again, that “You can’t convince me by just examples,” however, I didn’t do it last time I read this.
Should we doubt writers every time we read something? Yes, to avoid bias. Yes, when you detect bad reasoning. But my default is “read and assume they are right.” I feel the necessity to doubt, but I am not certain if that is the right, correct path.
I was wondering why Scott was unfairly picking on cardiologists. This is an interesting phenomenon I hadn’t noticed before.
Quite the scary thought.
There are a list of actual stories and descriptions of creepy sexual harassment. It was enough for me to frown and think to recommend people to choose other branches of medical doctor other than cardiologists. Although I consider myself sensitive to anecdotal evidence and confounding variables, my inner disclaimer didn’t make it explicit this time.
So wow, the last paragraph is talking directly to me.
I suggest this society help people with this issue, to the same degree as poverty, as it is hard to make out of it alone.
This happens probably because I assumed he is certain about the topic and I didn’t doubt. His message was clear: “Cardiologists are bad.” Later I could break this statement because he didn’t believe it at first place, as well as the bad reasoning. Notice he pulled the anecdotal evidence again, this time to defend the cardiologist side. We can refute him again, that “You can’t convince me by just examples,” however, I didn’t do it last time I read this.
Should we doubt writers every time we read something? Yes, to avoid bias. Yes, when you detect bad reasoning. But my default is “read and assume they are right.” I feel the necessity to doubt, but I am not certain if that is the right, correct path.