Most of my colleagues chose a guild offering exclusive (but limited) benefits and guaranteed economic survival, the same as all successful guilds. The remuneration in that guild seldom is set by the doctor, and only so in practices dealing with purely elective and/or cosmetic concerns. When I was at the top of my surgical game, my per-procedure fee scale was one fourth what it was when I began practice for Medicare patients (65 and over, or disabled), and one half for privately insured patients. Free market concepts apparently do not apply, as even the wealthiest patients would not pay more for better service.

It is an obvious source of jealousy that the average doctor has a higher income and a better public image than the average economist, regardless of the actual value of the services. Hanson may be consoled that in medicine, like economics, it is not necessarily the “best and brightest” who are compensated the most.

Why is the latter sentence in a Robin Hanson overcoming bias piece? It seems to me you’re riding widespread bias here, not making it transparent. Shame on you Robin Hanson, for hurting my persistence odds by helping yourself to the enjoyment of a little snark. :_^(

As someone working toward a CASAC degree in the “helping profession” I’d like to comment.

I agree that the helping profession is a more direct, face to face interaction. We get to see the change we make in the world in person, as we work with people day to day.

I don’t think asserting the desire to help people is a bad thing. Perhaps it is egotistical to proclaim it from the rooftops, but the sentiment behind it is more altruistic in the end. I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people get into the helping profession to help people, to make a difference in the world one person at a time (particularly those at the more shallow end of the helping pool: social services workers, substance abuse counselors, etc.). We don’t get paid much, but the job is rewarding.

Other professions may provide necessary services, and may in fact change lives and help people, but it’s far less measurable. You can say a movie changed your life, or a particularly nice waiter made your day. These may help a person once in awhile, but helping professionals do it every day; it’s the driving intention of the profession to help.

Living in a society bent on the value of a dollar takes the focus off the importance of personal relationships; the helping profession puts the focus back on to them.

i agree that the question is ‘how’. but the fact that there is still a lack of ways in which to factor those cognitive-affective variables — which existence you seem to agree on — should not be taken as a green light for a cold, rational analysis to go through unchecked.

didn’t you imply that in your argument? i guess i have a problem in seeing how your analysis can be applied, and in which world if not this one. i agree that by participating in a society we do help each other, and that your analysis has its own validity. but taking this too far — without factoring in personal interaction, emotional bias, and the condition of being sick — wouldn’t that be absurd, given the current knowledge of how our mental faculties work?

doctors help more than other professions simply because their consumers (patients) subjectively think so. when you’re sick and at your weakest, all cognitive and emotional biases come into play, so anyone with normal mental faculties would have the tendency to value medical help more than any other help in their daily lives. i thought economists these days agree that even healthy people aren’t as rational as economics would like them to be, let alone when sick. only rational economists and robots can think about the six arguments you made when seeing their doctors. economists only, i should say, for robots don’t get sick.