My guess is that a large majority of American doctors don't agree with the woke capture of academic medicine, which also includes most medical journals. Moreover, I'd guess that many of the doctors who publicly recite the woke medicine doctrines don't really believe in them. They just won't risk social and/or professional ostracism by publicly disagreeing with the woke nonsense.
A university exists for one non-negotiable purpose: to pursue truth by discovering, testing, and teaching knowledge grounded in objective reality. This is a pretty good statement of the universities mission.
What’s at the root of the current crisis (which this conversation is a good example) is a quiet but large shift inside universities, starting in the 1990s, with the replacement of objective, evidence-based truth with “lived experience” truth as an equal or superior form of knowledge. This was a hypothesis of enormous consequence, yet it was adopted without undergoing the rigorous testing, falsification, or methodological scrutiny that any paradigm changing hypothesis demands. Because this shift was never validated but was instead morally insulated from critique, it spread unchecked into fields like medicine, where objective standards are essential. The result is an erosion of rigor in exactly the domains where rigor is most needed.
Now I know that this new hypothesis is to some degree false. I worked at a company where getting to an individual’s lived experience was critical to our success. There are many well recognized techniques that can be used to do this. And new better techniques are developing just as they do in any science. The acceptance of this hypothesis of “lived experience” can replace objective truth spread everywhere incredibly fast, probably due to the increase in speed of communications taking place between 1990 and 2020. It has impacted systems everywhere and has directly fed the tribalism and distrust that were already on the edge. If it is to be fixed it must be done where it started, at Universities.
I've read maybe half of this so far but has many excellent points.
To boil it down to the most simple statement, (and this goes for many professions, lawyers listen in) stay in your lane, or don't get out over your ski's is great advice for all.
What you do in your private life is different.
Not to mention how many good (emotional) intentions turn out to be poor choices.
"Okay. And the fact that people might not be aware is exactly the reason, and we're going to get to this later, why I don't talk that much about trans issues or even the post COVID lockdown issues, because they do have, and rightly have so much, such a high profile, but this doesn’t.”
I understand why you didn't delve into it more deeply here, because it's part and parcel of the whole woke capture of the medical profession. Just want to put this out there for those who might not know about DIAG -- Democrats For An Informed Approach to Gender. We're trying to fight the lunatic genderborg and hope you'll join us: https://www.di-ag.org/
What you are describing is an Orwellian nightmare where adherents of a political cult make anonymous accusations like in the Witch Trials, over their idiotic substance-free political hysteria-induced rage. And all of this enabled by progressive administrators who lack the spine to stand up for liberalism, democratic traditions and basic human decency and professional behavior. People launching baseless witch hunts should have themselves been reprimanded.
I agree with much of Satel's critique and with her guidelines for when and how medical professionals should get involved in political advocacy. I'm less certain about her independent-mindedness when it comes to opioid addiction. She's been criticized for citing Purdue-funded studies that deny that over-prescribing played a role in the epidemic and for her conflict of interest (Purdue funds AEI). Also, it seems that the opioid charity she was brought on by JD Vance to oversee was a failure even by Vance's admission. So, I guess my overall feeling about this episode is great topic and discussion that, for me, was somewhat undermined by questions about Satel's integrity. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-entertainment-health-175153d8a80d93b2c9c6654a6a730de9
1. We will never see a Black doctor. It didn't used to be that way, but the medical profession has said that Black doctors are incapable of meeting the same standards as other doctors can meet. They have made a clear statement, so we will follow these medical associations' recommendations.
2. Yes, people hear what they want based upon their previous assumptions.
3. Another factor, and this applies perfectly to the study on black and white babies, is that people simply don't understand that you can't draw cause-effect relationships from correlational data. Maybe instead of algebra in high school students should be required to take a statistics course. Reading almost all articles these days requires a knowledge of statistics.
I could not find a transcript. Many podcasts provide transcripts now. When one needs to quote the dialogue in an interview, it is far easier and faster to locate it in the transcript and copy and paste the relevant parts than transcribing it manually by playing it back repeatedly. Also, it is usually faster to read the transcript than it is to watch and listen to it. So, transcripts please, TLP.
An article in the Washington Post yesterday gave me a start. To make a long story more to the point, it seems like in the 1800s, the state of Virginia, in order to genocide the remaining indigenous peoples and increase the sale able lands’ availability, a law was passed stating the land in Virginia could only be purchased by either white or black folks.
I have noticed Texas, many doctors are relocating and or retiring to the state of Virginia.
My guess is that a large majority of American doctors don't agree with the woke capture of academic medicine, which also includes most medical journals. Moreover, I'd guess that many of the doctors who publicly recite the woke medicine doctrines don't really believe in them. They just won't risk social and/or professional ostracism by publicly disagreeing with the woke nonsense.
A university exists for one non-negotiable purpose: to pursue truth by discovering, testing, and teaching knowledge grounded in objective reality. This is a pretty good statement of the universities mission.
What’s at the root of the current crisis (which this conversation is a good example) is a quiet but large shift inside universities, starting in the 1990s, with the replacement of objective, evidence-based truth with “lived experience” truth as an equal or superior form of knowledge. This was a hypothesis of enormous consequence, yet it was adopted without undergoing the rigorous testing, falsification, or methodological scrutiny that any paradigm changing hypothesis demands. Because this shift was never validated but was instead morally insulated from critique, it spread unchecked into fields like medicine, where objective standards are essential. The result is an erosion of rigor in exactly the domains where rigor is most needed.
Now I know that this new hypothesis is to some degree false. I worked at a company where getting to an individual’s lived experience was critical to our success. There are many well recognized techniques that can be used to do this. And new better techniques are developing just as they do in any science. The acceptance of this hypothesis of “lived experience” can replace objective truth spread everywhere incredibly fast, probably due to the increase in speed of communications taking place between 1990 and 2020. It has impacted systems everywhere and has directly fed the tribalism and distrust that were already on the edge. If it is to be fixed it must be done where it started, at Universities.
I've read maybe half of this so far but has many excellent points.
To boil it down to the most simple statement, (and this goes for many professions, lawyers listen in) stay in your lane, or don't get out over your ski's is great advice for all.
What you do in your private life is different.
Not to mention how many good (emotional) intentions turn out to be poor choices.
You both mentioned briefly transgender bs:
At 4:59:
"Okay. And the fact that people might not be aware is exactly the reason, and we're going to get to this later, why I don't talk that much about trans issues or even the post COVID lockdown issues, because they do have, and rightly have so much, such a high profile, but this doesn’t.”
I understand why you didn't delve into it more deeply here, because it's part and parcel of the whole woke capture of the medical profession. Just want to put this out there for those who might not know about DIAG -- Democrats For An Informed Approach to Gender. We're trying to fight the lunatic genderborg and hope you'll join us: https://www.di-ag.org/
What you are describing is an Orwellian nightmare where adherents of a political cult make anonymous accusations like in the Witch Trials, over their idiotic substance-free political hysteria-induced rage. And all of this enabled by progressive administrators who lack the spine to stand up for liberalism, democratic traditions and basic human decency and professional behavior. People launching baseless witch hunts should have themselves been reprimanded.
Progressives are a dangerous political group and progressivism is a totalitarian cult. I’ll mention this excellent series of articles diving into the excess of the woke cult and their enablers. https://open.substack.com/pub/americandreaming/p/memory-holing-wokeness
I agree with much of Satel's critique and with her guidelines for when and how medical professionals should get involved in political advocacy. I'm less certain about her independent-mindedness when it comes to opioid addiction. She's been criticized for citing Purdue-funded studies that deny that over-prescribing played a role in the epidemic and for her conflict of interest (Purdue funds AEI). Also, it seems that the opioid charity she was brought on by JD Vance to oversee was a failure even by Vance's admission. So, I guess my overall feeling about this episode is great topic and discussion that, for me, was somewhat undermined by questions about Satel's integrity. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-entertainment-health-175153d8a80d93b2c9c6654a6a730de9
Some observations from us
1. We will never see a Black doctor. It didn't used to be that way, but the medical profession has said that Black doctors are incapable of meeting the same standards as other doctors can meet. They have made a clear statement, so we will follow these medical associations' recommendations.
2. Yes, people hear what they want based upon their previous assumptions.
3. Another factor, and this applies perfectly to the study on black and white babies, is that people simply don't understand that you can't draw cause-effect relationships from correlational data. Maybe instead of algebra in high school students should be required to take a statistics course. Reading almost all articles these days requires a knowledge of statistics.
I could not find a transcript. Many podcasts provide transcripts now. When one needs to quote the dialogue in an interview, it is far easier and faster to locate it in the transcript and copy and paste the relevant parts than transcribing it manually by playing it back repeatedly. Also, it is usually faster to read the transcript than it is to watch and listen to it. So, transcripts please, TLP.
An article in the Washington Post yesterday gave me a start. To make a long story more to the point, it seems like in the 1800s, the state of Virginia, in order to genocide the remaining indigenous peoples and increase the sale able lands’ availability, a law was passed stating the land in Virginia could only be purchased by either white or black folks.
I have noticed Texas, many doctors are relocating and or retiring to the state of Virginia.