This semester is off to a terrible start... (Mostly a rant)

[Peelee]

It might have to do with where I live. I've met a few I didn't want to meet twice, but that's personal between me and them. I take the current direction of the thread to be about perfect being the enemy of good enough. If a guy (or gal or whatever) is good enough to be called "Doctor" he (or they) should be called "Doctor".

So you would classify the belief that women, as a whole, are "structurally inadequate for intercourse," and that that could be fixed via surgery (James Burt, MD, board-certified gynecologist), that's "good enough?" Or how about Cecil Jacobson, MD, who was a fertility doctor and used his own sperm instead of the patients' spouses' or anonymous donors', in addition to numerable cases where he falsely told patients they were pregnant, only to tell them they miscarried later on, despite said patients never actually being pregnant? Imean, we need every doctor we can get, right? What about Andrew Holton, MD, who erroneously diagnosed epilepsy in over 600 cases, of children, through simple gross incompetence. But hey, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

At no point was I saying we need perfect. I totally agree that perfect is the enemy of good. I'm just saying I'd rather have the top of the class doctor from Poor County Community College than a bottom-of-the-class doctor from Harvard (though the real terror is the one from wherever who got the Gentleman's C). I want the people who paid attention and wanted to learn, because they're not guaranteed to not be complete whackjobs, but the odds sure as hell seem better.

[halfeye]

So you would classify the belief that women, as a whole, are "structurally inadequate for intercourse," and that that could be fixed via surgery (James Burt, MD, board-certified gynecologist), that's "good enough?" Or how about Cecil Jacobson, MD, who was a fertility doctor and used his own sperm instead of the patients' spouses' or anonymous donors', in addition to numerable cases where he falsely told patients they were pregnant, only to tell them they miscarried later on, despite said patients never actually being pregnant? Imean, we need every doctor we can get, right? What about Andrew Holton, MD, who erroneously diagnosed epilepsy in over 600 cases, of children, through simple gross incompetence. But hey, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

At no point was I saying we need perfect. I totally agree that perfect is the enemy of good. I'm just saying I'd rather have the top of the class doctor from Poor County Community College than a bottom-of-the-class doctor from Harvard (though the real terror is the one from wherever who got the Gentleman's C). I want the people who paid attention and wanted to learn, because they're not guaranteed to not be complete whackjobs, but the odds sure as hell seem better.

I think the terrible doctors were terrible people, but largely adequate doctors before they went off the rails. There have been a few who've turned more than a bit nutty, but they are a rarity and most of the time other people pick up on their nuttyness before they do serious harm. It would be better if nobody was ever bad, but without tyranny that's not possible.

There has to be someone at the bottom of the class even if everybody in it scored 99.99%.

[Peelee]

I think the terrible doctors were terrible people, but largely adequate doctors before they went off the rails. There have been a few who've turned more than a bit nutty, but they are a rarity and most of the time other people pick up on their nuttyness before they do serious harm. It would be better if nobody was ever bad, but without tyranny that's not possible.

That's why I tossed in the doctor with 600 misdiagnoses. Because yes, doctors can be incompetent. As can judges, lawyers, ship captains, any highly skilled job can have (and DOES have) people who got in that are actually terrible at that job.

Ans even that aside, ethics is a pretty important part of being a doctor; operating on patients without informed consent, for example, is a massive breach of ethics, which does make one a bad doctor.

[Knaight]

Ans even that aside, ethics is a pretty important part of being a doctor; operating on patients without informed consent, for example, is a massive breach of ethics, which does make one a bad doctor.

That said, the assumption that it's the doctors that did worse academically that end up doing unethical things is pretty baseless - and even the incompetence side may or may not have a particularly strong correlation, especially when the incompetence manifests as being absolutely spectacular at medicine, circa 1970, where the last 50 years of medical advancements after med school have largely passed the doctor by.

[snowblizz]

If a guy (or gal or whatever) is good enough to be called "Doctor" he (or they) should be called "Doctor".

Provided they have an *actual* doctorate, right?

Not one of those practice based applied science people who get their hands dirty.

[darkrose50]

Provided they have an *actual* doctorate, right?

Not one of those practice based applied science people who get their hands dirty.

Out of pure coincidence I just mentioned a similar idea in another thread.

A while back Stephen Colbert was making fun of a senator (?) with a geology degree calling himself a geologist when he did not work in geology. I would think that you could call yourself a X if you have a degree in X, but not a job in X.

My friend the mud scientist (cat litter, oil rig lubricant, and whatever else mud scientists make) has a degree in biology, but a job in chemistry. I would think that he could call himself both a biologist and a chemist.

I really wish he would put "mud scientist" on a business card and hand it out.

[snowblizz]

Just as a clarification am doing spoof on the "oh, so not a real doctor" thing. Which annoys us with Ph.D.s a lot. Because most doctors aren't real doctors (and getting a PhD is not a simple matter, even in comparison to going to medical school).

I remember that politician not a gelologist thing (I think it was a state senator?). The important thing there was that the person in question was making authoritative statements as if he had qaulifications he did not have. A bit like Dara O'Brien making a joke about nutritionists vs dietists (the latter is a "protected professional term") and how he'd be a great nutritionist, "eat whatever you like, no go ahead have some more".


Basically, don't try and state stuff you don't really know. Like in your example, by virtue of your job you work as a chemist, might not make you qualified to say something deep about chemical reactions whereas your biologist training would enable you to comment on biological phenomena.

[Peelee]

Out of pure coincidence I just mentioned a similar idea in another thread.

A while back Stephen Colbert was making fun of a senator (?) with a geology degree calling himself a geologist when he did not work in geology. I would think that you could call yourself a X if you have a degree in X, but not a job in X.

My friend the mud scientist (cat litter, oil rig lubricant, and whatever else mud scientists make) has a degree in biology, but a job in chemistry. I would think that he could call himself both a biologist and a chemist.

I really wish he would put "mud scientist" on a biasness card and hand it out.

Eh, I'm with Colbert. A geologist is someone who studies geology. A senator with a geology degree is a senator.

[Willie the Duck]

It's almost as if trying to quantify what one does or what one knows with a simple "I am a ______" statement might be problematic.

When discussing my role, I usually say, "I am a boss" or "I am a manager" although my education certainly informs my abilities, knowledge, and ability to understand the projects I'm assigning. When I'm making hiring decisions, certainly degree has weight, but if someone has a certain degree, but then never actually worked in the field*, it doesn't really tell me what you can do with that. Translating it to the geology degree-bearing senator, honestly it doesn't tell me if they're any better at understanding the actual downstream effects of a bill before them than any other senator or not.
*I'm not hiring entry-level, but this does highlight the issue of 'so how do you get that first job?'

[darkrose50]

Being an X is likely a sliding scale and/or a Venn diagram. It (often) is a vague agreed upon definition without a definition, like the words afternoon and evening.

Having a bachelors degree in X can be a contributing factor.
Having a masters degree in X can be a contributing factor.
Having a doctorate in X can be a contributing factor.
Having a license to practice X can be a contributing factor.
Earning a living doing X can be a contributing factor.
Having papers published in a peer-reviewed X publication can be a contributing factor.

Some people are more of a(n) X, then others.

-----

There is that guy Frank Abagnale (?) that the 2002 movie Catch Me If You Can was based off of. Evidently he studied to pass the bar exam without going to law school (in a short-ish amount of time and passed). That is quite impressive.

-----

It was also likely a good idea to hire a biologist that understands chemistry to get some well-rounded knowledge in the workplace.

[Peelee]

There is that guy Frank Abagnale (?) that the 2002 movie Catch Me If You Can was based off of. Evidently he studied to pass the bar exam without going to law school (in a short-ish amount of time and passed). That is quite impressive.

It is impressive, but much less than presented; at the time, you could take the bar exam multiple times, and if you failed, they would tell you what you got wrong. IIRC Abagnale failed three times before passing.

The Movie was based on a book Abagnale himself wrote, and it should come as no surprise that he portrayed himself in a rather favorable light.

[snowblizz]

{scrubbed}

[darkrose50]

I would think that he would have a low-level claim to the geologist title.

I am an insurance agent. Getting a license was not hard (the waiting to see if I passed the tests was the hardest part). Basically study some flashcards for a week or two. I think most of my studying was done in the car on the 1-hour to and 1-hour from my mothers house via my wife reading me the flash-cards.

Now I guess that passing the tests makes you an insurance agent, but you really do not learn what to do by passing the tests. The tests covered things, for the most part, that are never used (at least at my workplace). So even if you knew it all backwards and forwards I would guess that ~95%+ of the material on the tests would not help you do my job. Really just make sure that you (a) know what the insurance words mean, and (b) follow the law: pass HIPPA before giving out personal information, read the legal disclaimers, and do not lie, cheat or steal. You will then learn how to fill out paperwork, learn how the plans work, and what the procedures are after you pass the tests, and when you get the job.

At the end of annual enrollment when my department blows up from 16-24 agents to nigh 100-agents, we only keep maybe 20% - 25% when annual enrollment is over (we are growing). Some go to other departments, and some go to my department. Now after working for a few years you learn the job. I have been doing it for ~5-6 years, and I am still learning stuff. My place of employment does not have a manual that you can just read, you need to figure it out via oral tradition, practice, and time.

So yeah, there is having an insurance agent license, and then there is being an insurance agent for real.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I've been in my field pretty much since I graduated University a couple decades ago. I still learn at least two new things each month.