Close

Complete Captcha

• 3 years - 60 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 242 Goods vs 115 No Goods

1. Economist
   ef77
   

   Okay so I'm kind of puzzled by this one.

   The authors randomly assign black male patients to black or white male doctors, and find that the patients are more likely to take up preventative treatment after meeting with a same-race doctor. They argue that this means that "diversity" is important among doctors.

   The glaring hole I see in this argument is that the decisions (in this case) belong to the patients. So the (black) patients are only doing it if the doctor is black.

   Does that mean that diversity is important? Only in so much as the patients are unwilling to listen to the equally good advice given by the white doctors. And so the story seems to go "black patients are racially biased, so it's important to have black doctors in order to satisfy their racism." How is that not the story they are telling here?

   3 years ago # QUOTE 24 Volod 3 Vlad !

2. Economist
   7f63
   

   Wow, seems you have several papers you could write about this now OP. How about you go do that and get back to us with your results.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 12 Vlad !

3. Economist
   8b5d
   

   Shocking that you desperately dig for holes in the AER paper that goes against your priors while quickly embracing the one that confirms them.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 15 Vlad !

4. Economist
   bacf
   

   Okay so I'm kind of puzzled by this one.
   The authors randomly assign black male patients to black or white male doctors, and find that the patients are more likely to take up preventative treatment after meeting with a same-race doctor. They argue that this means that "diversity" is important among doctors.
   The glaring hole I see in this argument is that the decisions (in this case) belong to the patients. So the (black) patients are only doing it if the doctor is black.
   Does that mean that diversity is important? Only in so much as the patients are unwilling to listen to the equally good advice given by the white doctors. And so the story seems to go "black patients are racially biased, so it's important to have black doctors in order to satisfy their racism." How is that not the story they are telling here?

   Look, youre correct. The black patients are "racist" in a literal sense. But their racism is the result of many years of oppression and abuse by white people. Many of them were doctors. Look up the Tuskegee experiments. This is a bit different than just not liking someone because they're different.

   In my opinion, the authors should at least address your point. Haven't read the paper yet.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 8 Vlad !

5. Economist
   87a8
   

   Black-white is not diversity, it is colorism.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   ef77
   

   Shocking that you desperately dig for holes in the AER paper that goes against your priors while quickly embracing the one that confirms them.

   No, I think they're probably both empirically valid. I don't find any methodological holes whatsoever. I'm commenting instead on the way in which the story is presented, which has to do with the modern taste for progressive arguments.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 1 Vlad !

7. Economist
   87a8
   

   Great insight. The paper is more about tribalism, less about diversity.

   Okay so I'm kind of puzzled by this one.
   The authors randomly assign black male patients to black or white male doctors, and find that the patients are more likely to take up preventative treatment after meeting with a same-race doctor. They argue that this means that "diversity" is important among doctors.
   The glaring hole I see in this argument is that the decisions (in this case) belong to the patients. So the (black) patients are only doing it if the doctor is black.
   Does that mean that diversity is important? Only in so much as the patients are unwilling to listen to the equally good advice given by the white doctors. And so the story seems to go "black patients are racially biased, so it's important to have black doctors in order to satisfy their racism." How is that not the story they are telling here?

   3 years ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   ef77
   

   To put my argument another way: take the paper, and flip the words "black" and "white" throughout.

   White patients randomly meet with black and white doctors, and if they meet with white doctors, they're more likely to listen to their advice.

   Would the story still be "diversity is so important"? Or would it be about racism instead?

   3 years ago # QUOTE 29 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   300d
   

   If it were white patients instead, what would be the interpretation?

   3 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    c304
    

    It sounds like an incredibly boring study with from what I can tell no real economics.

    this pseudo work is what makes economics least of a science.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 2 Vlad !

11. Economist
    c304
    

    Science is to come up with shocking results and a clear description or model, people trying to disprove the new result, and failing to do so, which gradually but begrudgingly makes it into the commonly accepted knowledge.

    Instead here we just have the "right" results, vague mechanisms, people who hoard around these right ideas, and find - no surprise - similar results, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    7109
    

    It's actually pretty easy.

    Why would black patients not trust white doctors?

    Because their black skin causes them to ignore advice from people of a different race?

    Or because their experience has been that trusting people of a different race has historically not gone so well.

    Once you can think through this, I think you will understand a bit better.

    Good luck.

    Okay so I'm kind of puzzled by this one.
    The authors randomly assign black male patients to black or white male doctors, and find that the patients are more likely to take up preventative treatment after meeting with a same-race doctor. They argue that this means that "diversity" is important among doctors.
    The glaring hole I see in this argument is that the decisions (in this case) belong to the patients. So the (black) patients are only doing it if the doctor is black.
    Does that mean that diversity is important? Only in so much as the patients are unwilling to listen to the equally good advice given by the white doctors. And so the story seems to go "black patients are racially biased, so it's important to have black doctors in order to satisfy their racism." How is that not the story they are telling here?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 14 Vlad !

13. Economist
    cc0e
    

    Yes, but does diversity also affect patient height?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 9 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    9770
    

    Yes, but does diversity also affect patient height?

    Underrated!

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    ef77
    

    It's actually pretty easy.
    Why would black patients not trust white doctors?
    Because their black skin causes them to ignore advice from people of a different race?
    Or because their experience has been that trusting people of a different race has historically not gone so well.
    Once you can think through this, I think you will understand a bit better.
    Good luck.

    OP here. Look, I'm a person of color as well, and I'm frankly pretty sick of this argument.

    Has there historically been a lot of bias towards black people? Absolutely. Were white people at the time the ones who perpetrated it? Absolutely. Were /these/ doctors racist towards black people? No, they're doctors working at low-cost clinics in Oakland. These doctors are being judged for their race alone. That's racism.

    None of the patients here were Tuskegee experiment victims. They have no reason to distrust white doctors in this circumstance except for their own prejudices.

    Saying that it's acceptable for POC to be distrustful of white people because of the legacy of oppression in this country is just a racist argument. Would it be acceptable for white people to be distrustful of black people because of their increased propensity for violent crime? Of course not.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 2 Vlad !

16. Economist
    300d
    

    Let's create a politically correct result no matter what happens:
    BP = Black patient
    WP = White patient
    BD = Black doctor
    WD = White doctor

    For BP, BD>WD:
    We need diversity in health care. Their experience has been that trusting people of a different race does not go well.

    For BP, WD>BD:
    Black people discriminate against Black Doctors. It is a case of internalized racism

    For WP, BD>WD
    We need diversity in health care. Black doctors do better than white doctors. Having more black doctors would lead to a huge increase in health outcomes

    For WP, WD>BD
    White patients are racist and only take white doctors seriously.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 27 Volod 2 Vlad !

17. Economist
    7109
    

    imagine being this triggered about race issues.

    Let's create a politically correct result no matter what happens:
    BP = Black patient
    WP = White patient
    BD = Black doctor
    WD = White doctor
    For BP, BD>WD:
    We need diversity in health care. Their experience has been that trusting people of a different race does not go well.
    For BP, WD>BD:
    Black people discriminate against Black Doctors. It is a case of internalized racism
    For WP, BD>WD
    We need diversity in health care. Black doctors do better than white doctors. Having more black doctors would lead to a huge increase in health outcomes
    For WP, WD>BD
    White patients are racist and only take white doctors seriously.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 15 Vlad !

18. Economist
    ec02
    

    Okay so I'm kind of puzzled by this one.
    The authors randomly assign black male patients to black or white male doctors, and find that the patients are more likely to take up preventative treatment after meeting with a same-race doctor. They argue that this means that "diversity" is important among doctors.
    The glaring hole I see in this argument is that the decisions (in this case) belong to the patients. So the (black) patients are only doing it if the doctor is black.
    Does that mean that diversity is important? Only in so much as the patients are unwilling to listen to the equally good advice given by the white doctors. And so the story seems to go "black patients are racially biased, so it's important to have black doctors in order to satisfy their racism." How is that not the story they are telling here?

    Look, youre correct. The black patients are "racist" in a literal sense. But their racism is the result of many years of oppression and abuse by white people. Many of them were doctors. Look up the Tuskegee experiments. This is a bit different than just not liking someone because they're different.
    In my opinion, the authors should at least address your point. Haven't read the paper yet.

    The most important type of diversity we should consider is the one that can be visually identified without having to actually talk to or understand that person.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    5b12
    

    You shouldn’t trust your doctor or do what he says, period. Race is irrelevant.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    d870
    

    So their policy recommendation is segregation in health care?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.