5 ms·

> What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance. They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice

by ardy42 6y ago

> What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance. They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice out there you'd like.

zepto 6y ago
Ok. More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist. I don't but you're moving the goalposts and asking a different question. I was talking about personal preferences (e.g. like/dislike), and you're talking about "efficacy as a therapist." I'm also getting a vibe of a kind weird inversion from you, where it's the therapist's right to see a particular patient unless that patient can prove with a "model" that the therapist won't work for them.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I don't but you're moving the goalposts and asking a different question. I was talking about personal preferences (e.g. like/dislike), and you're talking about "efficacy as a therapist." No. You are advancing the position that the interests of people selecting therapists are served by newspapers publishing articles about their writings. I think that if you ask people whether they would prefer a more effective therapist over a less effective one, most people would say they would prefer the more effective one. Effectiveness as a therapist is part of how people form preference of therapists. Excluding it is arbitrary. Nowhere do I suggest anything about therapists having any right to see any particular client. That idea is competely made up by you.

5 ms·

> What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance. They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice

by ardy42 6y ago

> What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance. They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice out there you'd like.

zepto 6y ago
Ok. More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist. I don't but you're moving the goalposts and asking a different question. I was talking about personal preferences (e.g. like/dislike), and you're talking about "efficacy as a therapist." I'm also getting a vibe of a kind weird inversion from you, where it's the therapist's right to see a particular patient unless that patient can prove with a "model" that the therapist won't work for them.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I don't but you're moving the goalposts and asking a different question. I was talking about personal preferences (e.g. like/dislike), and you're talking about "efficacy as a therapist." No. You are advancing the position that the interests of people selecting therapists are served by newspapers publishing articles about their writings. I think that if you ask people whether they would prefer a more effective therapist over a less effective one, most people would say they would prefer the more effective one. Effectiveness as a therapist is part of how people form preference of therapists. Excluding it is arbitrary. Nowhere do I suggest anything about therapists having any right to see any particular client. That idea is competely made up by you.