5 ms·
This is absolutely true of many personality types! But not others. (And there are perhaps some marginal temperaments that could, with more practice & supporting
by gojomo 3y ago
This is absolutely true of many personality types! But not others. (And there are perhaps some marginal temperaments that could, with more practice & supporting culture, become more sanguine about any worrying-but-non-terminal interim/probabilistic estimates.)
So, rather than denying the info from those who could use it without becoming a 'nervous wreck', maybe the optimal policy would be to offer it based on a psychological pre-screen?
- yieldcrv 3y ago> maybe the optimal policy would be to offer it based on a psychological pre-screen? or have the other ones seek therapy
- gochi 3y agoYou cannot pre-screen for whether or not someone will be affected by receiving a report that they are 68% likely to die by heart disease in the future. That's illogical and quite frankly insane.
- gojomo 3y agoOf course you can. It's not a unique tendency uncorrelated with all other aspects of personality/temperament/anxiety. There are expecially emotional people, especially neurotic people, especially gloomy people – and their opposites, who remain cold in the same situations that freak others out. And it's largely, though not perfectly, predictable. Many people will have enough of a self-conception – like the author of the post to which I replied – that they will have a fairly accurate idea of how they'll react. Any many "in the middle" might, by considering, rehearsing, & precommitting to moods/strategies beforehand, helpfully prep/prime themselves to more-calmly handle whatever probabilistic results come back. Those too concerned, by their own self-knowledge or that of experts/pretests, can skip the risk of "knowing too much" via an elective test, while others can proceed, knowing the risks, with informed consent.