4 ms·

Lots of people have biases that they don't realize can impact the quality of their interactions. There's a frequent issue where people who speak English as thei

Lots of people have biases that they don't realize can impact the quality of their interactions. There's a frequent issue where people who speak English as their second language are more likely to be perceived as less intelligent. Certain thick regional accents also can cause that issue. Part of the educational process for all professionals, especially doctors, includes learning to monitor for potential prejudices like that and taking steps to ensure it does not impact your ability to deliver high quality care (ie, ask more questions or have a colleague review your work if you are unsure). I'm not tar and feathering people. But when women in our society are constantly saying "Some men don't take me as seriously as my male counterparts despite my equal (or superior) credentials" then maybe there is some truth to that which can bleed over professional interactions in hospitals as well? I've experienced it first hand myself professionally (never been to the ER) only a handful of times, but I don't think it's the norm, and I don't go into professional situations with men assuming it will happen. Still, when it happens, it sucks and I wish other men would talk to those guys and tell them why it sucks so those guys will do better. We've gone a long way towards making sexism less of a problem for everyday women. Just because there are a few examples of it that have slipped by doesn't mean we give up. We just know more of what to watch out for.

jerf 8y ago
"We've gone a long way towards making sexism less of a problem for everyday women." I couldn't have asked for a better example of precisely what I was talking about. We are so primed to jump down people's throat because of SEXISM that by the time you reached the end of your post, you've already slipped into the assumption that it's the only possible explanation, and are lecturing the doctors in question about how sexist they are and how they should stop it. It is counter to the principles of science to be so sure, though. It's not that large of an effect, even with the population size, and there's plenty of room for some other systematic error to be the problem. But you've been programmed to assume that if I'm bringing up the possibility that a scientific paper may have a second explanation, then politically I must also be denying the existence of sexism in the universe and must therefore be downvoted and also lectured to about how important it is that we not be sexist. But I reject your attempt to exert moral superiority, for the exact reasons I gave in the original post. What's important is not shutting down sexism and scoring moral preening points for having Right Opinions. What's important is finding the real cause, so we can address it. Science is filled unto overflowing with examples and inductive proof that when people go into something with a predetermined conclusion about the causes of some phenomenon, they are often wrong, and end up doing great harm because of it. If we have to choose between getting to yell at people because Sexism, or actually fixing the real problem, which is it going to be? Unfortunately, as your own message demonstrates, which I have no reason to believe is particularly exceptional, I know the answer. In 2018, it's getting to yell at people Because Sexism, and to hell with whatever the real reason may be. We already know the real reason, and it's Sexism. Because in 2018, even if the real reason isn't sexism, the real reason is still sexism, you just must not be looking hard enough.
- sudosteph 8y ago
  I'm flattered by your interpretation of my comment as one which allows me to "exert moral superiority". I have made no judgements against your morals, only against the merits of your arguments. Now let me correct your other misconceptions. >> "We've gone a long way towards making sexism less of a problem for everyday women." > I couldn't have asked for a better example of precisely what I was talking about. We are so primed to jump down people's throat because of SEXISM that by the time you reached the end of your post, you've already slipped into the assumption that it's the only possible explanation, and are lecturing the doctors in question about how sexist they are and how they should stop it. You misunderstand context. That last line was there to convey the sentiment that society HAS successfully addressed sexism in the past. It was a direct refutation of your claim: > if it "truly is" sexism, then you also foreclose any chance of fixing it... > But you've been programmed to assume that if I'm bringing up the possibility that a scientific paper may have a second explanation, then politically I must also be denying the existence of sexism in the universe and must therefore be downvoted and also lectured to about how important it is that we not be sexist. 1. Calling people "programmed" for disagreeing with you is rude, and hacker news readers tend to prefer polite discourse - this may have affected your votes. 2. You did not propose a second explanation at all. You simply said that the one I proposed should not even be investigated until every other alternative is ruled out. How can you claim to care about science but not even be willing to investigate a hypothesis that is supported by data, just because you don't like the idea that it relates to a political and social topic? Take your anger out on the people tar-and-feathering, not the people trying to figure out how to stop women from dying disproportionately due to preventable health issues. If you really have a strong theory on an alternative reason behind this data, then propose it and make your own case. 3. "lectured"? I disagree with your assessment of tone there. I simply re-iterated my argument with context that is more relatable to hacker news readers and shared a relevant experience. The point is: Even if it's NOT sexism underlying the root cause of this particular issue, you appear logically biased when you dismiss the role it could play for no reason other than "I don't like when people blame sexism for things". Dismissing it out of hand due to a purely emotional appeal makes it seem like your analysis is troubled. It's as short-sighted and illogical as people who blame sexism for every little thing ever. Morality aside, the downvotes you earned were well deserved due to the poor quality of argument and the uncivil tone. Also, "sexism" doesn't need to have the "s" capitalized.
chess19 8y ago
Isn't he also trying to say that perhaps the bias that some women have against male doctors might also contribute to the statistic? In other words, women heart attack patients might be more stressed or worried with male doctors leading to higher mortality. You yourself admit to being biased against male doctors.

jerf 8y ago

"We've gone a long way towards making sexism less of a problem for everyday women." I couldn't have asked for a better example of precisely what I was talking about. We are so primed to jump down people's throat because of SEXISM that by the time you reached the end of your post, you've already slipped into the assumption that it's the only possible explanation, and are lecturing the doctors in question about how sexist they are and how they should stop it. It is counter to the principles of science to be so sure, though. It's not that large of an effect, even with the population size, and there's plenty of room for some other systematic error to be the problem. But you've been programmed to assume that if I'm bringing up the possibility that a scientific paper may have a second explanation, then politically I must also be denying the existence of sexism in the universe and must therefore be downvoted and also lectured to about how important it is that we not be sexist. But I reject your attempt to exert moral superiority, for the exact reasons I gave in the original post. What's important is not shutting down sexism and scoring moral preening points for having Right Opinions. What's important is finding the real cause, so we can address it. Science is filled unto overflowing with examples and inductive proof that when people go into something with a predetermined conclusion about the causes of some phenomenon, they are often wrong, and end up doing great harm because of it. If we have to choose between getting to yell at people because Sexism, or actually fixing the real problem, which is it going to be? Unfortunately, as your own message demonstrates, which I have no reason to believe is particularly exceptional, I know the answer. In 2018, it's getting to yell at people Because Sexism, and to hell with whatever the real reason may be. We already know the real reason, and it's Sexism. Because in 2018, even if the real reason isn't sexism, the real reason is still sexism, you just must not be looking hard enough.

sudosteph 8y ago
I'm flattered by your interpretation of my comment as one which allows me to "exert moral superiority". I have made no judgements against your morals, only against the merits of your arguments. Now let me correct your other misconceptions. >> "We've gone a long way towards making sexism less of a problem for everyday women." > I couldn't have asked for a better example of precisely what I was talking about. We are so primed to jump down people's throat because of SEXISM that by the time you reached the end of your post, you've already slipped into the assumption that it's the only possible explanation, and are lecturing the doctors in question about how sexist they are and how they should stop it. You misunderstand context. That last line was there to convey the sentiment that society HAS successfully addressed sexism in the past. It was a direct refutation of your claim: > if it "truly is" sexism, then you also foreclose any chance of fixing it... > But you've been programmed to assume that if I'm bringing up the possibility that a scientific paper may have a second explanation, then politically I must also be denying the existence of sexism in the universe and must therefore be downvoted and also lectured to about how important it is that we not be sexist. 1. Calling people "programmed" for disagreeing with you is rude, and hacker news readers tend to prefer polite discourse - this may have affected your votes. 2. You did not propose a second explanation at all. You simply said that the one I proposed should not even be investigated until every other alternative is ruled out. How can you claim to care about science but not even be willing to investigate a hypothesis that is supported by data, just because you don't like the idea that it relates to a political and social topic? Take your anger out on the people tar-and-feathering, not the people trying to figure out how to stop women from dying disproportionately due to preventable health issues. If you really have a strong theory on an alternative reason behind this data, then propose it and make your own case. 3. "lectured"? I disagree with your assessment of tone there. I simply re-iterated my argument with context that is more relatable to hacker news readers and shared a relevant experience. The point is: Even if it's NOT sexism underlying the root cause of this particular issue, you appear logically biased when you dismiss the role it could play for no reason other than "I don't like when people blame sexism for things". Dismissing it out of hand due to a purely emotional appeal makes it seem like your analysis is troubled. It's as short-sighted and illogical as people who blame sexism for every little thing ever. Morality aside, the downvotes you earned were well deserved due to the poor quality of argument and the uncivil tone. Also, "sexism" doesn't need to have the "s" capitalized.

chess19 8y ago

Isn't he also trying to say that perhaps the bias that some women have against male doctors might also contribute to the statistic? In other words, women heart attack patients might be more stressed or worried with male doctors leading to higher mortality. You yourself admit to being biased against male doctors.