←back to thread

473 points Bostonian | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
henearkr ◴[] No.42186615[source]
This whole debate is surrealist.

Bigotry and intolerance are fundamentally irrational and illogical, so the so-called "left-bias" of science is just science being itself.

Now the comments in this HN page and the reason.com article are completely ignoring that, and only considering everything through a political filter.

replies(3): >>42186632 #>>42187607 #>>42188246 #
TheBlight ◴[] No.42186632[source]
Is "intolerance" objectively defined?
replies(1): >>42186677 #
henearkr ◴[] No.42186677[source]
Easy enough: make matter things that have no reason to matter.

Like what the skin color has to do with how good your physician is? Nothing.

Science is smart enough to propose the adequate metrics, in this case it does absolutely not include melanin.

replies(4): >>42187694 #>>42187843 #>>42188205 #>>42188281 #
Manuel_D ◴[] No.42187694{3}[source]
> Like what the skin color has to do with how good your physician is? Nothing.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Malpractice and disciplinary rates among Black and Latin physicians are higher: https://www.library.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Medica...

> After controlling for a number of other variables, Latino/a and Black physicians were both more likely to receive complaints and more likely to see those complaints escalate to investigations. Latino/a physicians were also more likely to see those investigations result in disciplinary outcomes. On the other hand, some other minority physicians — in particular Asian physicians — actually saw reduced likelihoods of receiving complaints, or of those complaints escalating to investigations. These observations remained even after controlling for age, gender, board certification, and number of hours spent on patient care.

replies(2): >>42187919 #>>42192016 #
1. henearkr ◴[] No.42192016{4}[source]
Same as my other comment.

Don't use a proxy.

replies(1): >>42201952 #
2. Manuel_D ◴[] No.42201952[source]
Is it defensible to claim that men don't commit more violent crime than women? Sure, men are convicted of violent crimes at a higher rates, but convictions for violent crimes is just a proxy for the true violent crime rate. If we want to make th claim that there's a disparity here we shouldn't use a proxy.

Of course, that logic doesn't work because convictions for crime is a pretty good proxy. If I want to discredit it, I'd have to actually explain why convictions for violent crime don't correspond to the true crime rates. If you have cause to think that malpractice lawsuits and disciplinary actions are not a good proxy for poorly administered medical care, I'm all ears.

replies(1): >>42202403 #
3. henearkr ◴[] No.42202403[source]
We agree to disagree.

Btw, criminal conviction related to the profession is not a proxy, it is really one of the things that matter, measured directly. So you're mixing concepts.