Emily Oster who?
Emily Oster, comment?
-
I find it confusing why people who clearly are not economists (or else they'd be able to read the medical literature, and would then inevitably conclude the same as EO) post character attacks targeting an economist on an econ board.
Or do you people check your empirical training at the door when entering medical context?
-
I find it confusing why people who clearly are not economists (or else they'd be able to read the medical literature, and would then inevitably conclude the same as EO) post character attacks targeting an economist on an econ board.
Or do you people check your empirical training at the door when entering medical context?LOL if EO could read the medical literature she would not have written missing girls. If economists could read the medical literature it wouldn't have ended up in a top 5.
-
I find it confusing why people who clearly are not economists (or else they'd be able to read the medical literature, and would then inevitably conclude the same as EO) post character attacks targeting an economist on an econ board.
Or do you people check your empirical training at the door when entering medical context?you sound dumb...
-
Come on ProfEmily
I find it confusing why people who clearly are not economists (or else they'd be able to read the medical literature, and would then inevitably conclude the same as EO) post character attacks targeting an economist on an econ board.
Or do you people check your empirical training at the door when entering medical context? -
Have any of you ever interacted with doctors? They no zero stats, no none of the relevant literature, and make absurd recommendations dressed up as holy truths. I'd trust the average second year PhD student with two hours on Google scholar more on medical decisions than the team at my University's elite teaching hospital
-
Your psychiatrist nos what she is doing. Please take your medication.
Have any of you ever interacted with doctors? They no zero stats, no none of the relevant literature, and make absurd recommendations dressed up as holy truths. I'd trust the average second year PhD student with two hours on Google scholar more on medical decisions than the team at my University's elite teaching hospital
-
Being a doctor is a kind of vocation no economist would know about. Being a good doctor involves the kind of intuitive decision-making which is inherently different. That is why I would not trust a robot with medical knowledge to be my doctor. Intuitively, it is on par with a general making a decision on a battlefield, a pilot making a decision when a plane goes into a stall, etc. That is why I will not trust EO giving me medical advice based on her "knowledge". A good doctor who is not up to date with the latest literature has the intuition born out of seeing 30 patients a day, with all sorts of complications and medical nuances, going into the reasoning behind her advice.
Have any of you ever interacted with doctors? They no zero stats, no none of the relevant literature, and make absurd recommendations dressed up as holy truths. I'd trust the average second year PhD student with two hours on Google scholar more on medical decisions than the team at my University's elite teaching hospital
-
The above is the type of BS that doctors use to peddle their BS opinions and recommendations.
You all know that doctors follow rules and procedures (set by their liability insurance) to an even greater degree than a damn robot would.
They are utterly incapable of thinking about trade offs in decision making and always recommend the risk minimizing (for their liability insurance) procedure, regardless of the facts of the matter, the patient's precise status, or the patient's preferences.
Add to that a hugely gendered component of not taking female patients seriously in eg gyn and obstetrics, and you have a profession that systematically fails at the lofty goals it publicly sets for itself.
I hope any of you who are contemplating having kids get a good doctor for yourself or your wife, because most are completely incompetent idiots
-
The above is the type of BS that doctors use to peddle their BS opinions and recommendations.
You all know that doctors follow rules and procedures (set by their liability insurance) to an even greater degree than a damn robot would.
They are utterly incapable of thinking about trade offs in decision making and always recommend the risk minimizing (for their liability insurance) procedure, regardless of the facts of the matter, the patient's precise status, or the patient's preferences.
Add to that a hugely gendered component of not taking female patients seriously in eg gyn and obstetrics, and you have a profession that systematically fails at the lofty goals it publicly sets for itself.
I hope any of you who are contemplating having kids get a good doctor for yourself or your wife, because most are completely incompetent idiotsThe person who said medicine involves a lot of intuition and cannot easily be systematized is entirely correct. The other side of this is doctors make use of a lot of knowledge that has been gained from years of experience or passed through mentorship, which does not appear in textbooks or research literature.
Truth is that medicine requires strong social IQ and analytical skills, rather than the p-hacking ability that seems to be the primary skill of many economists.
-
The above is the type of BS that doctors use to peddle their BS opinions and recommendations.
You all know that doctors follow rules and procedures (set by their liability insurance) to an even greater degree than a damn robot would.
They are utterly incapable of thinking about trade offs in decision making and always recommend the risk minimizing (for their liability insurance) procedure, regardless of the facts of the matter, the patient's precise status, or the patient's preferences.
Add to that a hugely gendered component of not taking female patients seriously in eg gyn and obstetrics, and you have a profession that systematically fails at the lofty goals it publicly sets for itself.
I hope any of you who are contemplating having kids get a good doctor for yourself or your wife, because most are completely incompetent idiotsThe person who said medicine involves a lot of intuition and cannot easily be systematized is entirely correct. The other side of this is doctors make use of a lot of knowledge that has been gained from years of experience or passed through mentorship, which does not appear in textbooks or research literature.
Truth is that medicine requires strong social IQ and analytical skills, rather than the p-hacking ability that seems to be the primary skill of many economists.What Dumbo doctors apologists post here?
Med research is entirely phacking on observational studies.
Doctors in hospitals just follow rules.
-
^ Moving on from doctors, would you appoint as a general the soldier who was able to quote you the winning statistics for different types of tactics in various battles in history?
I wouldn't hire EO to perform a cesarian ... But I'd trust anyone with basic stats understanding over any doctor to make the decision whether I SHOULD get one
-
What Dumbo doctors apologists post here?
Med research is entirely phacking on observational studies.
Doctors in hospitals just follow rules.Doctors consider various levels of evidence, and are completely aware of the weaknesses of observational studies. They actually conduct randomized experiments, which they consider to be amongst the highest evidence for something. Doctors all know that observational studies are provide weaker evidence.
In fact, you can argue that doctors are even more stringent than economists in how they evaluate studies. The belief amongst doctors is that causality cannot be established outside of randomized trials. Compare that to economists who bloviate about the identification revolution and use appeals to authority or cute arguments to claim causality for their identification approach.
-
Personally, being a parent drove me several times to read medical literature on one issue or another we were facing during pregnancy. I found the quality of these studies to be shockingly low. The empirics are flawed (small sample sizes, selected samples, omitted variables, serious survey biases like recall), there are no robustness checks, the summary statistics are of limited usefulness or aren't presented at all, and on and on. (I found myself really appreciating the length of econ papers.) I'd be happy to give a couple of specific examples if you are interested. I suspect most here are just trolls looking to get some punches in on their favorite EJMR villain.
Recommendations need to be made to parents, so the flimsy studies must be relied upon and extrapolated from. Remember that doctors do not necessarily read the studies, but rather follow the cookbook they find in their medical texts. Also, part of the issue is that most parents couldn't handle being presented any nuance or handle any uncertainty behind the recommendations.
In the end, I don't really believe any of the recommendations, and I now feel like I need to read the literature myself. Of course this is suboptimal, as I am not a medical expert. I appreciated that Emily did some of the legwork for me in the book.