I wanted to be blown away by this talk, but I wasn't. First, she throws out the concept of "level playing field" without showing any awareness of the Berkeley gender bias case (aka Simpson's paradox). Equal opportunity does not always translate into equal outcomes: the applicants themselves might self-select. Second, if you take a doctor who spends twenty minutes with one patient and ten minutes with another, then insist he or she spends fifteen minutes with each, you might well end up with poorer medical care, if the doctor was already astute "on the margin" of his or her own skill as economists tend to phrase it. The doctor might have exhausted his/her capacity to help one of the two patients after ten minutes; perhaps the doctor is wise about time investment, but needs additional training to recognize more opportunities to contribute medical gain. Third, the much cited Lake Wobegon effect is completely meaningless in any setting where there are highly divergent personal standards. In her capacity as a trained cognitive scientist, I wanted to see the speaker take on _all_ the dragons and not turn this into a cognitive-bias shell game--we won't achieve a global improvement in outcome by replacing superficial cognitive problems with more subtle cognitive problems. Equality by fiat does tend to "level the playing field", though not necessarily in a good way.
Nice delivery (wearing black and red outfit), but the content is not worth much! She promotes the idea that DOCTORS must be blind robotic automatons, and criticize them from using their intelligence and experience when they are real doctors. She is surprised that "people from low socioeconomic levels gets less attention". Well it takes a pert academic psychologist to be surprised at that! Other people understand it is because most people (above average people) find them BORING, unless discussing TV broadcasts of football is your all-engulfing interest. The human brain is a wonderful thing, and science of psychology have struggled for 111 years to get .... nowhere! Maybe because it is still a opinionated fake science? I think it is both... and not even descriptiv.
This is a first rate, knowledgeable talk which demonstrates a thoroughly researched subject. It is well-worth listening to.
+Tom Lawson Thank you Tom.
Dr B you're the reason why TED was invented. Quite seriously, this really is food for thought.
A brilliant accomplished performance. Well done Dr Blease
+Stuart Blakley Your cheque is in the post again Stu.
I wanted to be blown away by this talk, but I wasn't. First, she throws out the concept of "level playing field" without showing any awareness of the Berkeley gender bias case (aka Simpson's paradox). Equal opportunity does not always translate into equal outcomes: the applicants themselves might self-select. Second, if you take a doctor who spends twenty minutes with one patient and ten minutes with another, then insist he or she spends fifteen minutes with each, you might well end up with poorer medical care, if the doctor was already astute "on the margin" of his or her own skill as economists tend to phrase it. The doctor might have exhausted his/her capacity to help one of the two patients after ten minutes; perhaps the doctor is wise about time investment, but needs additional training to recognize more opportunities to contribute medical gain. Third, the much cited Lake Wobegon effect is completely meaningless in any setting where there are highly divergent personal standards. In her capacity as a trained cognitive scientist, I wanted to see the speaker take on _all_ the dragons and not turn this into a cognitive-bias shell game--we won't achieve a global improvement in outcome by replacing superficial cognitive problems with more subtle cognitive problems. Equality by fiat does tend to "level the playing field", though not necessarily in a good way.
Wonderful work, I did learn something.
+ki Itabashi Thank you!
The CC is terrible on this video.
disappointing but very good communication skills
This is what happen when you put someone who don't know nothing about medicine to talk about the problems of medicine
They way google-caption service is being tricked by Charlottes' accent is hilarious!
Gee, and I thought this kind of psychology nonsense was only recent.
Great. Um... what is your opinions on space aliens? Yea... I have things happppening.
Nice delivery (wearing black and red outfit), but the content is not worth much! She promotes the idea that DOCTORS must be blind robotic automatons, and criticize them from using their intelligence and experience when they are real doctors. She is surprised that "people from low socioeconomic levels gets less attention". Well it takes a pert academic psychologist to be surprised at that! Other people understand it is because most people (above average people) find them BORING, unless discussing TV broadcasts of football is your all-engulfing interest. The human brain is a wonderful thing, and science of psychology have struggled for 111 years to get .... nowhere! Maybe because it is still a opinionated fake science? I think it is both... and not even descriptiv.