3 ms·
> It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these (...) Let's say that green people have a higher rate of suicide attempts when t
by robryk 10y ago
> It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these (...)
Let's say that green people have a higher rate of suicide attempts when they have mental illness X. This is very useful knowledge -- this means that one should treat X in green people more aggresively, because it's more dangerous for them.
Let's say that green people are more likely to suffer from alcoholism. This is very important for green people themselves (they might prefer being teetolaters for that reason) and for organisations that try to prevent alcoholism -- they should target green people more in order to be more effective at decreasing the number of alcoholics.
I can go on and provide such examples. Do you consider that in these cases there is still almost no practical use, that these examples are thought up and in real life you don't get such or something else?
- peteretep 10y ago> This is very useful > knowledge -- this means that > one should treat X in green > people more aggresively, > because it's more dangerous > for them. No you shouldn't, you should asses each patient individually, especially if - as per say qualification for a job - this fact is discernible by actually examining the person. Otherwise you will let a small 10% increase in likelihood for one group blind you to the needs of another.
- wtbob 10y ago> No you shouldn't, you should asses each patient individually Assessment means making observations; making observations means observing; observing means actually opening your eyes to the facts as they are. You'd be killing your patients if you ignored the fact that greens commit suicide more often on average.