4 ms·

>And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion We are on to something, You think all people have essentially the same fundamental cap

>And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion We are on to something, You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? >But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. Anyway we probably are essentially talking one and the same thing.

jdmichal 7y ago
> You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. It's also a very difficult skill to judge, because value systems range so broadly. Just because it doesn't look like a "reasonable" choice to you -- which is pretty much defined by "the set of things I would have picked" -- doesn't mean that it wasn't for that person. For instance, I would not care to inject myself with unknown-to-myself drugs, because I'm naturally risk adverse and don't have a need compelling enough to take the risks I associate with such an action. But I also acknowledge that others have different aversions and needs than myself. > Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. OK. Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Regardless, I agree that this seems to be the end of the conversation. If it's the former, than that's a irreparable disconnect in our ideologies. If it's the latter, then I'm undereducated and won't attempt to discuss. Do keep in mind that I'm separating the FDA's evaluations from things that hinge on that evaluation. The FDA could still be doing its thing, even if drugs could be sold without their approval. (Though they would certainly not get the level of cooperation that they currently enjoy.)
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  >I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. We have a very fundamental difference of opinion, and we will have to leave the discussion at that. And the difference is this: my opinion is that people will significantly vary in their decision making skill, everything else being equal (training, knowledge, experince etc.) >Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Both. It's because the vast majority of people in my (subjective) analysis are worse decision makers than me. The FDA is no exception. The FDA is also prone to being corruptible, as is any human enterprise. It's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
  - jdmichal 7y ago
    We don't have a difference. Of course talent plays into skills also. And, if it wasn't clear before, I think it's impossible for two people to run the same decision process. Values, needs, experience are all so infinitely varied that there is no such thing. > Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition. I'm fine with cynicism. I just don't buy into the "burn the world" version of it. And it's not even a decision based on facts, but rather that operating that way is just untenable for me. If I strip away all the layers of trust, there's simply nothing left. Yes, we live in a world and society that is terribly broken in many ways. But, regardless, we still have to live in it. And so I choose to accept some baseline axioms, simply to survive.

jdmichal 7y ago

> You think all people have essentially the same fundamental capacity to reason? And all that differs from person to person is information, experience and knowledge? I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. It's also a very difficult skill to judge, because value systems range so broadly. Just because it doesn't look like a "reasonable" choice to you -- which is pretty much defined by "the set of things I would have picked" -- doesn't mean that it wasn't for that person. For instance, I would not care to inject myself with unknown-to-myself drugs, because I'm naturally risk adverse and don't have a need compelling enough to take the risks I associate with such an action. But I also acknowledge that others have different aversions and needs than myself. > Wrong, _you_ think it's a good source of information. I don't. OK. Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Regardless, I agree that this seems to be the end of the conversation. If it's the former, than that's a irreparable disconnect in our ideologies. If it's the latter, then I'm undereducated and won't attempt to discuss. Do keep in mind that I'm separating the FDA's evaluations from things that hinge on that evaluation. The FDA could still be doing its thing, even if drugs could be sold without their approval. (Though they would certainly not get the level of cooperation that they currently enjoy.)

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>I think that decision making is a skill. And like all skills, having those things will improve it. We have a very fundamental difference of opinion, and we will have to leave the discussion at that. And the difference is this: my opinion is that people will significantly vary in their decision making skill, everything else being equal (training, knowledge, experince etc.) >Is it because you don't trust their methods? Or their implementation? Both. It's because the vast majority of people in my (subjective) analysis are worse decision makers than me. The FDA is no exception. The FDA is also prone to being corruptible, as is any human enterprise. It's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition.
- jdmichal 7y ago
  We don't have a difference. Of course talent plays into skills also. And, if it wasn't clear before, I think it's impossible for two people to run the same decision process. Values, needs, experience are all so infinitely varied that there is no such thing. > Look through my profile, and you will see a cynic. Josiah Zayner, the guy who's article is posted would be a guy of similar disposition. I'm fine with cynicism. I just don't buy into the "burn the world" version of it. And it's not even a decision based on facts, but rather that operating that way is just untenable for me. If I strip away all the layers of trust, there's simply nothing left. Yes, we live in a world and society that is terribly broken in many ways. But, regardless, we still have to live in it. And so I choose to accept some baseline axioms, simply to survive.