Definitely. Let’s not imitate the deceptive headlines in mainstream media
remizidae
Karma: 496
Medicine has solved this problem for the majority of mystery illnesses that are psychosomatic. But it’s a difficult cure because it requires the sick person’s cooperation. And people don’t often talk about this because of the misconception that considering psychosomatic illness is insulting to the sick person.
There is probably a niche for a prominent person or doctor to explain psychosomatic illness and work on getting people to consider that possibility and accept treatment. But that is a task suited more to influencers and those with a lot of tact than for nerds.
I’m guessing it’s meant for group houses or other meeting spaces based on the emphasis on floor chairs and rugs. Good stuff if you’re sitting on a floor, but if you’re not in a crowded group situation, most people would prefer sitting on real chairs or couches.
Re the point that mania is very bad, I agree, but people should know that not all mania is associated with bipolar disorder.
It might be a good idea to point out that there is substantial individual variation in how individual women experience their menstrual cycle. Knowing the averages does not enable you to draw conclusions about what any individual is experiencing. If you find yourself saying, “You must be [X] because of your menstrual cycle,” stop. Do not lecture women about their menstrual cycle, do not assume you know more than they do about how their bodies work.
I gather there wasn’t any data about cyclic changes in sex drive, but that would be an interesting one to study too.
Do people in your bubble generally find it difficult to make decisions that might seem “selfish,” or might be disapproved of by their peers?
It’s very strange to me that a group of people who are, on average, very well informed about COVID, and who are probably aware that the risk of death for healthy non-elderly people is incredibly low, would so often go completely overboard on precautions. Is it hyper-altruism?
I’ve got to ask, what is the most locked-down person you know doing? It’s hard to imagine being more locked down than you are!
How much of your stress do you think was the result of living in a group house, and thus feeling that you had to get roommates’ consent to very normal things like going on a date or a walk? I know some people seem to like the group house thing, but damn, I like making my own decisions.
I’d like to see survey data on rationalists’ responses to the pandemic. Does this exist (should i make it exist?) I suspect the incredibly super-cautious are more vocal, thus distorting our perception of what others are doing.
Personally, I’m avoiding indoor restaurants/bars and indoor socializing and I wear masks when required. But I have no problem with outdoor socializing, going to restaurants and stores, and I’ve gone on several pandemic vacations.
You may be overestimating the amount of time and effort rich parents (especially rich fathers) put towards raising kids.
Also, some people would devote themselves to caretaking activities: lots of kids incl. foster kids, lots of dogs or cats. I’m not saying this is exactly bad, in some cases it’s good, but at extremes it can become hoarding, when the impulse to collect kids/pets overwhelms the motivation to adequately care for them.
Drugs, alcohol and porn. How many people have a preexisting tendency towards overuse of these substances that is kept in check by the need to get up on time for work and be reasonably productive and presentable at work? This is no limit to the amount of time an addicted person can spend pursuing their addiction.
You could extend this to other potentially addictive activities, like shopping, video games, and social media.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I’m not too worried about this problem because I tend to assume that people will evaluate my advice in the light of their own circumstances and needs. I have not had a problem with people blindly accepting my advice on faith, without critical thought. Maybe this would be more of a problem for a teacher of young children or famous person or CEO or someone else with a lot of prestige.
Check them for the alcoholism genes.
Is this possible? I did 23andme and that wasn’t included.
What does asserting the right to pseudonymity mean?
I think this post is really valuable because it pushes people to be in information-seeking mode, rather than hortatory mode. And I’m sorry to see that I’m the only one who’s tried to answer the question, because I’m sure my answer is incomplete.
I’d like to encourage other people to really try to think and learn about why the FDA is acting this way. What is happening and why? What procedures and incentives are they operating with? Don’t jump straight to criticizing them, don’t jump to what you would do if you built the system from scratch. (And no, “fire everybody and replace them with AI” is never going to fly in the federal government.)
If this is ever going to change, we need to know what’s happening first.
I don’t think that’s the obstacle. Lots of different people are looking at the application from different angles, and no one seems to have the sense of urgency we might think is warranted.
I addressed this in #1 above. Even if they’ve already seen data, they’re starting from scratch as far as evaluating the Officially Submitted Data goes. Plus the number of different people and groups involved.
I’d love to hear from someone at FDA on this. I do not work for FDA, but here’s my guess.
-
they need to study the data they’ve been given. Although FDA will have been in communication with the drug company and seen their data all along, they probably have a rule that they can only consider data Officially Submitted as part of an Official Application. In a complex organization, most likely lots of people get involved in a big decision, including managers, lawyers, and political appointees who don’t necessarily have a lot of value to add on safety/efficacy questions but who do have enough organizational clout to ensure they don’t get bypassed even in an emergency. I’d guess for sufficiently big decisions, conversations happen with Congressional and White House staffers too.
-
Legal requirements for notice. FDA might have to give the public notice that they are considering the approval. And the FDA has an advisory committee on vaccines, and they are required to give notice of those meetings so that the public has a chance to attend. There are probably emergency bypasses to these notice requirements, but no one is particularly incentivized to take the risk of departing from normal process.
This comment intended as description, not justification, of the existing practices.
-
This post feels to me weirdly bloodless. As if there were no way to make decisions other than Verifiable Documented Evidence. And only accepting Verifiable Documented Evidence is a great way to allow predators to keep getting away with it.
I understand this is written from the perspective of a meetup czar who does not & cannot attend most meetups, but in an ideal world the solution would be:
Czar becomes aware of a potential problem
Czar visits the area, talks to people
Czar makes a decision
You only need Verifiable Documented Evidence if no one actually has the power to make a decision based on intuitive knowledge.