= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on This is why we can't have social science - All
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (82)
And from up there you take it upon yourself to judge whether personal decisions are rational or not? I think you're way too far away for that.
That's a different issue. In a post upstream you made a rather amazing claim that additional tests after testing positive for cancer on a screening would be irrational. Do you stand by that claim?
Er...I think that's a little harsh of you. Overscreening is recognized as a problem among epidemiologists. When I say overscreening is a problem, I'm mostly just trusting expert consensus on the matter.
I stand by that a lot of smart people who study this issue believe that in actual medical practice, these screenings are either a problem in themselves, or that the information from the screenings can lead people to irrational behavior, and I do trust them.
But really, that was just an illustrative example used to steelman Michael. You don't have to except the actual example, just the general concept that this sort of thing can happen.
Rationality does not specify values. I rather suspect that the cost-benefit analysis that epidemiologists look at is quite different from the cost-benefit analysis that individuals look at.
LOL. Don't bother you pretty little head with too much information. No, you don't need to know that. No, you can't decide what you need to know and what you don't need to know. X-/