4 ms·
That seems... ok? It might even be a good thing. With enough regular feedback, we might emotionally adjust to the realization that "maybe you should get checke
by stickfigure 8y ago
That seems... ok?
It might even be a good thing. With enough regular feedback, we might emotionally adjust to the realization that "maybe you should get checked out" is not OMG I'm going to die.
- lomnakkus 8y agoa) It's just not that easy to "everybody needs to adjust" -- people are different wrt. what causes anxiety, etc. It seems a priory quite plausbile that there's a significant genetic component to this. b) "Get checked" may itself cause problems, for example: Scans for breast cancer involve radiation which may actually cause cancer. Biopsies can also be quite invasive. Obviously the risk is low, but depending on the exact numbers and it might actually be better to not get screened until one is in a known high-risk group (where the base rate fallacy doesn't skew the results so much).
- goodpoint 8y ago> It's just not that easy to "everybody needs to adjust" Education exists for this. > It seems a priory quite plausbile that there's a significant genetic component to this. a priori There's a very popular trend to imagine genetic components in every human behavior. It's not just incorrect, it's very dangerous. > Scans for breast cancer involve radiation which may actually cause cancer. That's easily handled using common practices. If breath and* blood test are positive do CT scan.
- lomnakkus 8y agoNo. Just... no.
- Omnus 8y agoThere is a huge misconception about the value of screening in the general population. It doesn't do what most people think it does. Even with emotional adjustment it is entirely unclear that screening for things like cancer is ever good for the patient. Look at work by the oncologist Vinay Prasad: https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080 https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080