4 ms·

I don't understand. Knowing the worst case scenario doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, but helps you get prepared for it in case it does. Who would

I don't understand. Knowing the worst case scenario doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, but helps you get prepared for it in case it does. Who would choose bliss over knowledge?

ggambetta 9y ago
Me neither. I know people who didn't go to the doctor because of this, or because "if you go to the doctor they will always find something wrong". Some of these people died leaving sons and daughters without parents, grandkids without grandparents. I not only don't understand the attitude, I find it borderline irresponsible/selfish. And I'm saying this from the pain of being one such son left without a father far too soon and in avoidable circumstances.
- phant0mas 9y ago
  This reminds me of my father. He was digging water wells for a living, but never checked his equipment. One day the link from the wire rope broke and he fell to his death 20 meters inside a well. This could have been avoided if he was taking care of his equipment. Hell even a simple check would have been enough.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  Unnecessary treatment can be wasteful, harmful or both. Medical professionals and public policy experts have debated how much cancer screening improves average outcomes. Portraying anyone who questions the value of medical testing as irrational and selfish is denying the fact that smart, thoughtful people have a hard time defining what is best practice on average. As many as 3/4 of positive cancer screening test results can be false positives, and if you get one, you have to then do further testing and possibly treatment, which entails risks. 'overscreening for prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening “is common in both men and women, which not only increases health care expenditure but can lead to net patient harm.” ' [1] My father was diagnosed (and eventually died) of cancer shortly before the age at which periodic screening was recommended, in the early 80s. Nowadays, screening is recommended at a younger age, and if he had been tested, then it might have been caught in time. However, I reject the idea that anyone is irresponsible based on hindsight in a single case. It's just bad luck. And public policy needs to be set based on what is best for everybody. [1] http://www.ascopost.com/issues/october-15-2014/overscreening-for-prostate-breast-colorectal-and-cervical-cancer-can-raise-costs-and-harm-patients/ http://www.ascopost.com/issues/october-15-2014/overscreening...
vollmond 9y ago
Worry and anxiety and depression have been shown to have negative physical results, no? So if you are prone to those psychological reactions, being informed of risks you weren't aware of could literally make you less healthy, even if that particular risk never happens. It's not universal by any means, but it would certainly affect a nonzero number of people. edit for anecdata: I know someone who has this reaction, and trouble grokking statistics and risks (gets it intellectually, but has trouble internalizing), so being informed of their risk factor for a given condition can cause them to become consumed with anxiety and worry for a time.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Worry and anxiety aren't treated like the secondary emotions that they are. People are expected to manage their anger, yet many are encouraged to cultivate their anxiety as part of their social script.
microcolonel 9y ago
The difference here is fundamentally one of personality. If you're more neurotic, your response to a signal indicating a relatively small risk could be more dangerous than the risk itself; if less so, knowing is probably safer than not knowing. There's another axis of this though, where people who would not react all that poorly to the bad news nonetheless avoid hearing it. That is, I think, a problem that loved ones will have to fix or live with.

I don't understand. Knowing the worst case scenario doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, but helps you get prepared for it in case it does. Who would choose bliss over knowledge?

ggambetta 9y ago

Me neither. I know people who didn't go to the doctor because of this, or because "if you go to the doctor they will always find something wrong". Some of these people died leaving sons and daughters without parents, grandkids without grandparents. I not only don't understand the attitude, I find it borderline irresponsible/selfish. And I'm saying this from the pain of being one such son left without a father far too soon and in avoidable circumstances.

phant0mas 9y ago
This reminds me of my father. He was digging water wells for a living, but never checked his equipment. One day the link from the wire rope broke and he fell to his death 20 meters inside a well. This could have been avoided if he was taking care of his equipment. Hell even a simple check would have been enough.
perl4ever 9y ago
Unnecessary treatment can be wasteful, harmful or both. Medical professionals and public policy experts have debated how much cancer screening improves average outcomes. Portraying anyone who questions the value of medical testing as irrational and selfish is denying the fact that smart, thoughtful people have a hard time defining what is best practice on average. As many as 3/4 of positive cancer screening test results can be false positives, and if you get one, you have to then do further testing and possibly treatment, which entails risks. 'overscreening for prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening “is common in both men and women, which not only increases health care expenditure but can lead to net patient harm.” ' [1] My father was diagnosed (and eventually died) of cancer shortly before the age at which periodic screening was recommended, in the early 80s. Nowadays, screening is recommended at a younger age, and if he had been tested, then it might have been caught in time. However, I reject the idea that anyone is irresponsible based on hindsight in a single case. It's just bad luck. And public policy needs to be set based on what is best for everybody. [1] http://www.ascopost.com/issues/october-15-2014/overscreening-for-prostate-breast-colorectal-and-cervical-cancer-can-raise-costs-and-harm-patients/ http://www.ascopost.com/issues/october-15-2014/overscreening...

vollmond 9y ago

Worry and anxiety and depression have been shown to have negative physical results, no? So if you are prone to those psychological reactions, being informed of risks you weren't aware of could literally make you less healthy, even if that particular risk never happens. It's not universal by any means, but it would certainly affect a nonzero number of people. edit for anecdata: I know someone who has this reaction, and trouble grokking statistics and risks (gets it intellectually, but has trouble internalizing), so being informed of their risk factor for a given condition can cause them to become consumed with anxiety and worry for a time.

WalterSear 9y ago
Worry and anxiety aren't treated like the secondary emotions that they are. People are expected to manage their anger, yet many are encouraged to cultivate their anxiety as part of their social script.

microcolonel 9y ago

The difference here is fundamentally one of personality. If you're more neurotic, your response to a signal indicating a relatively small risk could be more dangerous than the risk itself; if less so, knowing is probably safer than not knowing. There's another axis of this though, where people who would not react all that poorly to the bad news nonetheless avoid hearing it. That is, I think, a problem that loved ones will have to fix or live with.