3 ms·

How would you control for idiot racists who believed they were getting a lower standard of care from certain ethnicities and ensuing psychosomatic effects?

beaeglebeachh 3y ago
How did they control for idiot bigots who believed they were getting a lower standard of care from certain gender and ensuing psychosomatic effects?
- petesergeant 3y ago
  They don't, but as they're not looking to link it to "variance in entry standards vs race [that] poison the well", they don't need to control for it: bigotry being a possible explanation for their findings would be a reasonable conclusion.
- underlipton 3y ago
  That's a good question. Since, IIRC, men in professional positions tend to score higher on perceived competence, it'd be actually even more damning if they didn't control for that properly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andrewmutz 3y ago
Mortality is unambiguous
- wjb3 3y ago
  Maybe - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8302433/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8302433/
prepend 3y ago
I suppose the same way they controlled for idiot bigots in this study. Since the outcome measure is mortality, someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point. All joking aside, you could look at patients who are unconscious who never see the race or gender of the physician, and stuff like that. These are solvable problems and people have been doing useful studies with racist participants for decades.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point I don't think that's true. Seeking a second opinion based on the race of the first doctor, variable treatment compliance by race of prescriber, willingness to discuss and understand a condition, poorer quality concordance, declining to follow a referral to a specialist of a certain race, etc, are all examples of "small" decisions someone could take based on racism that would likely show up in aggregate in mortality outcomes.

beaeglebeachh 3y ago

How did they control for idiot bigots who believed they were getting a lower standard of care from certain gender and ensuing psychosomatic effects?

petesergeant 3y ago
They don't, but as they're not looking to link it to "variance in entry standards vs race [that] poison the well", they don't need to control for it: bigotry being a possible explanation for their findings would be a reasonable conclusion.
underlipton 3y ago
That's a good question. Since, IIRC, men in professional positions tend to score higher on perceived competence, it'd be actually even more damning if they didn't control for that properly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

andrewmutz 3y ago

Mortality is unambiguous

wjb3 3y ago
Maybe - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8302433/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8302433/

prepend 3y ago

I suppose the same way they controlled for idiot bigots in this study. Since the outcome measure is mortality, someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point. All joking aside, you could look at patients who are unconscious who never see the race or gender of the physician, and stuff like that. These are solvable problems and people have been doing useful studies with racist participants for decades.

petesergeant 3y ago
> someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point I don't think that's true. Seeking a second opinion based on the race of the first doctor, variable treatment compliance by race of prescriber, willingness to discuss and understand a condition, poorer quality concordance, declining to follow a referral to a specialist of a certain race, etc, are all examples of "small" decisions someone could take based on racism that would likely show up in aggregate in mortality outcomes.