What many people like about being religious is being part of a community built on the idea of being and doing good. They can meet and discuss how to be and do good, share practical tips and sometimes just do good together. That sure can feel great.
Doctors spend yearsbeing trained and educated in their respective fields. However, doctors do makemistakes so it is in the best interest of patients to get a second opinion. Iused https://secondopinions.com when I felt an MRI I had done wasmisdiagnosed. SecondOpinions.com provided me with a second opinion that turnedout to be detailed and accurate. I would have had several health problems if Ihad not chosen to use SecondOpinions.com services. They also gave me a couponcode to share “jy15" to take 15% off your entire order which should stillwork. I recommend getting a secondopinion because it can potentially save your life.
I didn't initially notice that these guys compare CAT scans to Hiroshima survivors:
One million children every year have had unnecessary CT scans, which risks exposing them to radiation levels up to those experienced by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [xlv]
Rest of their "Vital facts and statistics" likewise consists of misinterpretations, chinese whispers game of citation chains, miscitations, misleading numbers (98 000 instead of "about 100 000"), and the like.
I don't think it's fair to characterize MetaMed service as "second opinion". It's an entirely different proposition: for one no doctor will spend days and mine a lot of literature as a "second opinion" - doctors don't specialize in that kind of activity, researchers do. It remains to be seen whether this is a good value proposition - time will tell - but I think this is quite different from a "second opinion".
A large proportion of podiatrists customers have plantar fasciitis. The best treatment method is in fact doctor free: plantar fascia stretch, hard shoe inserts to support the fascia, new shoes that offer lots of support like running shoes, and night splints to prevent the foot from being in a relaxed position at night.
This treatment modality worked for me and many doctors have told me that patients don't want to here the news that they can't have injections of steroids to ease the pain or expensive surgery. Doctors are here to serve patients needs, not give accurate info.
This service is badly needed, but not at 5k. Maybe 100 dollars.
I can tell you the answer to 1+1 right here on the spot, a team of analysts spending hours on the same problem won't give you a better answer than I would right here, right now.If medical problems would be comparable to solving 1+1, than you would be right. In the real world problems are harder. Doctors often don't make optimal treatment decisions as is described in the LessWrong post about MetaMed.
That training isn't up to date but likely older than a decade. In the meantime there's new knowledge.
if I could choose to retire two years early or live one year longer (no doubt in pain and bad health because a medical procedure is necessary to give me that extra year) I'd choose retiring early.If you can retire two years earlier for $5000 than you aren't in the target audience for MetaMed.
If you however have a yearly income of $100k things are different.
"I expect most doctors will disagree strongly with the claims that they don’t give patients personalized attention, only improve average health outcomes, and don’t offer the finest-grain advice available."
I'm not sure this is quite a direct response. Obviously an individual doctor gives patients personalized attention, and the only way to improve average outcomes is to improve outcomes for some specific patients. The point is that the advice, best practices, and recommended treatments the doctors rely on are all about the average outcome.
I don't know if that's actually true, or if even if that is true there is some low hanging fruit, but that's the steelmanned case.
I think their clients are likely to be the same "rationalists" they milk for the Machine Intelligence whatever. They advertise "For serious medical conditions, you need direct access to the world’s best researchers." Who, other than fellow "rationalists," will believe this motley crew are among the world's best researchers? This makes spot on Robin's point that they base their credibility on group membership and ideological affinity. What else could it be based on?
But while Robin scores high on inference to the best explanation, he flubs on the application of insights. The poor quality of medical research, which he has demonstrated, implies that you need trained diagnosticians to distinguish valid results. These perpetual graduate students may gain traction by finding obscure but worthless research.
Nobody's saying you're supposed to use probability theory to make all your decisions. The point is just to get the same results, most of the time, as you would if you *were* using probability theory.
In your metaphor - you do compare the results of the renderer to actual images. It doesn't mean your renderings have to be computed the same way that the universe computes the images, bu the results have to line up.
You have to have a standard of quality before you can improve something. I'd say that this method of comparing to probability theory is one of the rationality-enhancing things you can learn from LessWrong, that makes you better able to give medical advice.
I had also noticed that their employees page used to list a web designer (do they really have to have one permanently in their staff?) and Will "Eden", listed as a researcher, a former economist who used to work at a "life coaching" company.
Or you may be a middle-class person desperate for your life willing to sell your house (the $5,000 figure seems to be the fee for the minimum service. I suppose that they planned their business so that the typical service might be perhaps $50,000)
My sentiment is that people here are underestimating the amount of low-hanging fruit in medicine. My dad is a Nephrologist and researcher and concurs with my opinions that most doctors don't have much clue about statistics or non-pharmacological interventions. ER surgery is a miracle, infectious disease management is fantastic, but treatment of chronic conditions is woeful.
A small example is that a ketogenic diet may (emphasis on may) benefit some cancer patients, especially if they are undergoing chemo. A simple awareness of this fact has the potential to raise cancer survival rates.
Perhaps, but that team should be selected by qualified doctors rather than desperate patients. (Problem is, from Mr. Moneybags perspective, doctors wouldn't remunerate at $200 per hour for reviewing literature.)
And if the patient has $5000 to burn, why not spend it on a highly qualified generalist diagnostician? (Even the very rich would probably be better served by seeking yet another expert diagnostician than opting for lay research, which will likely add only confusion. -- "rationalists" notwithstanding, more information isn't always better, even if you know enough to discount it.)
That's really cool Aris. I'm pleased you got value from the experience and am sure many community members there have had similarly positive experiences. Its not quite my cup of tea but that is irrlelevant ... De gustibus non est disputandum etc ... In matters of taste, there can be no disputes ... so I have no major issue with LessWrong ... and wish them well ... the fundamental point I was attempting to make was that MetaMed has a lot more going for it than merely being associated with LW.
"In terms of providing an objective criterion, I would say the number the people whose philosophy and lives have been positively impacted would be a good measure of a communities success."
Well, listing some small-scale positive impact from my own life -- I've gained some thousands of dollars because I got interested in and invested in bitcoins after I saw a discussion thereof in the LessWrong community back when bitcoin was going between 1$ to 2$ (current price is around $70). I've also gotten great enjoyment out of reading or watching fiction I saw recommended in LessWrong, e.g. Greg Egan, the movie "Limitless", the Madoka Magica anime, all of which became all-time favourites. I decided not to pursue judicially a case against a neighbor where the time I'd have to waste would be much higher against any potential monetary benefit while explicitly thinking about the "learning how to lose" passage from Harry Potter & the Methods of Rationality.
Does all the above count as positive impact that LessWrong has had in my life? It's all positive yes, but the problem is determining that it's impact that *LessWrong* has had, and that I wouldn't have reached the same conclusion and the same actions even without its influence. And either way it's obviously not large enough in scale to qualify for the "inherited the earth" label.
Aris: this is an excellent question. Thank you. The inherited the earth comment was a flippant sarcastic statement more about my perception that the LWers tend to (somewhat arrogantly) presume they have ALL the answers.
They strike me as being rather judgmental and somewhat elitist focusing on IQ/intelligence as an important measure in the community. This might be a result of my own insecurities not sure ... its possible its just me.
The brand of "rationality" they promote tends to be beyond the grasp of your average person, who doesn't have high math or analytical ability. It is not very practical, focusing more on increasing theoretical knowledge than actual practice. Knowing is not the same as doing. The net result is that their brand of rationality is only applicable to very smart folks like them. In aggregate, this rules out the vast majority of the population seeking simple guidance on being more reasoned thinkers, it tends to be an echo chamber for smart people sharing unpractical theories on rationality. Then there are several extreme views there, like HAL in t the basement, taking over the earth that strike me as more than a little over the top.
In terms of providing an objective criterion, I would say the number the people whose philosophy and lives have been positively impacted would be a good measure of a communities success.
From what I understand this group at Penn has an online forum achieving excellent results in a related arena, 2 million or so people have taken courses with them and they seem to be doing well.
I have nothing against LW per se, I just find the arrogance and high end intellectual focus of the dialog there to be a little off-putting. For its audience it provides a lot of value, has millions of page views etc I am sure, but for your average person, it doesn't seem to provide many practical answers.
Very interesting replies on that blog post (once you ignore what looks like obvious fake it before we make it crud), especially the one about shrinking number of "employees" and a guy who lost his medical license for selling prescription drugs.
Since the benefits of their offering are essentially non testable, unless they do something very stupid (which is quite likely), if they are anywhere between being good enough to actually perform well, and being good enough to not break the law too much, they will linger like a chronic disease, wasting people's money, offering sub-par medical advice, and so on, while being cheered by their patients as the best deal ever.
This is the problem with alternative medicine. The bar to financial success is much much lower than the bar to success in terms of doing good. Most startups that look like they look would fail, and most of the rest would be doing damage.
edit: comments here: https://news.ycombinator.co... are very interesting. " > $5,000 (Surface); $25,000 (Depth); $250,000 (Comprehensive); $1,000,000 (Original Research) " .
edit2: https://news.ycombinator.co... is hilarious. Their sample reports for $5000 insomnia and $10000 H. Pylori definitely do leave an impression, though, that their business model permits use of philosophy majors for medical 'research'.
Doctors spend yearsbeing trained and educated in their respective fields. However, doctors do makemistakes so it is in the best interest of patients to get a second opinion. Iused https://secondopinions.com when I felt an MRI I had done wasmisdiagnosed. SecondOpinions.com provided me with a second opinion that turnedout to be detailed and accurate. I would have had several health problems if Ihad not chosen to use SecondOpinions.com services. They also gave me a couponcode to share “jy15" to take 15% off your entire order which should stillwork. I recommend getting a secondopinion because it can potentially save your life.
I didn't initially notice that these guys compare CAT scans to Hiroshima survivors:
One million children every year have had unnecessary CT scans, which risks exposing them to radiation levels up to those experienced by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [xlv]
http://lesswrong.com/r/disc...
Rest of their "Vital facts and statistics" likewise consists of misinterpretations, chinese whispers game of citation chains, miscitations, misleading numbers (98 000 instead of "about 100 000"), and the like.
I don't think it's fair to characterize MetaMed service as "second opinion". It's an entirely different proposition: for one no doctor will spend days and mine a lot of literature as a "second opinion" - doctors don't specialize in that kind of activity, researchers do. It remains to be seen whether this is a good value proposition - time will tell - but I think this is quite different from a "second opinion".
A large proportion of podiatrists customers have plantar fasciitis. The best treatment method is in fact doctor free: plantar fascia stretch, hard shoe inserts to support the fascia, new shoes that offer lots of support like running shoes, and night splints to prevent the foot from being in a relaxed position at night.
This treatment modality worked for me and many doctors have told me that patients don't want to here the news that they can't have injections of steroids to ease the pain or expensive surgery. Doctors are here to serve patients needs, not give accurate info.
This service is badly needed, but not at 5k. Maybe 100 dollars.
I can tell you the answer to 1+1 right here on the spot, a team of analysts spending hours on the same problem won't give you a better answer than I would right here, right now.If medical problems would be comparable to solving 1+1, than you would be right. In the real world problems are harder. Doctors often don't make optimal treatment decisions as is described in the LessWrong post about MetaMed.
That training isn't up to date but likely older than a decade. In the meantime there's new knowledge.
if I could choose to retire two years early or live one year longer (no doubt in pain and bad health because a medical procedure is necessary to give me that extra year) I'd choose retiring early.If you can retire two years earlier for $5000 than you aren't in the target audience for MetaMed.
If you however have a yearly income of $100k things are different.
"I expect most doctors will disagree strongly with the claims that they don’t give patients personalized attention, only improve average health outcomes, and don’t offer the finest-grain advice available."
I'm not sure this is quite a direct response. Obviously an individual doctor gives patients personalized attention, and the only way to improve average outcomes is to improve outcomes for some specific patients. The point is that the advice, best practices, and recommended treatments the doctors rely on are all about the average outcome.
I don't know if that's actually true, or if even if that is true there is some low hanging fruit, but that's the steelmanned case.
I think their clients are likely to be the same "rationalists" they milk for the Machine Intelligence whatever. They advertise "For serious medical conditions, you need direct access to the world’s best researchers." Who, other than fellow "rationalists," will believe this motley crew are among the world's best researchers? This makes spot on Robin's point that they base their credibility on group membership and ideological affinity. What else could it be based on?
But while Robin scores high on inference to the best explanation, he flubs on the application of insights. The poor quality of medical research, which he has demonstrated, implies that you need trained diagnosticians to distinguish valid results. These perpetual graduate students may gain traction by finding obscure but worthless research.
Nobody's saying you're supposed to use probability theory to make all your decisions. The point is just to get the same results, most of the time, as you would if you *were* using probability theory.
In your metaphor - you do compare the results of the renderer to actual images. It doesn't mean your renderings have to be computed the same way that the universe computes the images, bu the results have to line up.
You have to have a standard of quality before you can improve something. I'd say that this method of comparing to probability theory is one of the rationality-enhancing things you can learn from LessWrong, that makes you better able to give medical advice.
I had also noticed that their employees page used to list a web designer (do they really have to have one permanently in their staff?) and Will "Eden", listed as a researcher, a former economist who used to work at a "life coaching" company.
Or you may be a middle-class person desperate for your life willing to sell your house (the $5,000 figure seems to be the fee for the minimum service. I suppose that they planned their business so that the typical service might be perhaps $50,000)
My sentiment is that people here are underestimating the amount of low-hanging fruit in medicine. My dad is a Nephrologist and researcher and concurs with my opinions that most doctors don't have much clue about statistics or non-pharmacological interventions. ER surgery is a miracle, infectious disease management is fantastic, but treatment of chronic conditions is woeful.
A small example is that a ketogenic diet may (emphasis on may) benefit some cancer patients, especially if they are undergoing chemo. A simple awareness of this fact has the potential to raise cancer survival rates.
Perhaps, but that team should be selected by qualified doctors rather than desperate patients. (Problem is, from Mr. Moneybags perspective, doctors wouldn't remunerate at $200 per hour for reviewing literature.)
And if the patient has $5000 to burn, why not spend it on a highly qualified generalist diagnostician? (Even the very rich would probably be better served by seeking yet another expert diagnostician than opting for lay research, which will likely add only confusion. -- "rationalists" notwithstanding, more information isn't always better, even if you know enough to discount it.)
That's really cool Aris. I'm pleased you got value from the experience and am sure many community members there have had similarly positive experiences. Its not quite my cup of tea but that is irrlelevant ... De gustibus non est disputandum etc ... In matters of taste, there can be no disputes ... so I have no major issue with LessWrong ... and wish them well ... the fundamental point I was attempting to make was that MetaMed has a lot more going for it than merely being associated with LW.
"In terms of providing an objective criterion, I would say the number the people whose philosophy and lives have been positively impacted would be a good measure of a communities success."
Well, listing some small-scale positive impact from my own life -- I've gained some thousands of dollars because I got interested in and invested in bitcoins after I saw a discussion thereof in the LessWrong community back when bitcoin was going between 1$ to 2$ (current price is around $70). I've also gotten great enjoyment out of reading or watching fiction I saw recommended in LessWrong, e.g. Greg Egan, the movie "Limitless", the Madoka Magica anime, all of which became all-time favourites. I decided not to pursue judicially a case against a neighbor where the time I'd have to waste would be much higher against any potential monetary benefit while explicitly thinking about the "learning how to lose" passage from Harry Potter & the Methods of Rationality.
Does all the above count as positive impact that LessWrong has had in my life? It's all positive yes, but the problem is determining that it's impact that *LessWrong* has had, and that I wouldn't have reached the same conclusion and the same actions even without its influence. And either way it's obviously not large enough in scale to qualify for the "inherited the earth" label.
Aris: this is an excellent question. Thank you. The inherited the earth comment was a flippant sarcastic statement more about my perception that the LWers tend to (somewhat arrogantly) presume they have ALL the answers.
They strike me as being rather judgmental and somewhat elitist focusing on IQ/intelligence as an important measure in the community. This might be a result of my own insecurities not sure ... its possible its just me.
The brand of "rationality" they promote tends to be beyond the grasp of your average person, who doesn't have high math or analytical ability. It is not very practical, focusing more on increasing theoretical knowledge than actual practice. Knowing is not the same as doing. The net result is that their brand of rationality is only applicable to very smart folks like them. In aggregate, this rules out the vast majority of the population seeking simple guidance on being more reasoned thinkers, it tends to be an echo chamber for smart people sharing unpractical theories on rationality. Then there are several extreme views there, like HAL in t the basement, taking over the earth that strike me as more than a little over the top.
In terms of providing an objective criterion, I would say the number the people whose philosophy and lives have been positively impacted would be a good measure of a communities success.
From what I understand this group at Penn has an online forum achieving excellent results in a related arena, 2 million or so people have taken courses with them and they seem to be doing well.
http://www.authentichappine...
I have nothing against LW per se, I just find the arrogance and high end intellectual focus of the dialog there to be a little off-putting. For its audience it provides a lot of value, has millions of page views etc I am sure, but for your average person, it doesn't seem to provide many practical answers.
Very interesting replies on that blog post (once you ignore what looks like obvious fake it before we make it crud), especially the one about shrinking number of "employees" and a guy who lost his medical license for selling prescription drugs.
Since the benefits of their offering are essentially non testable, unless they do something very stupid (which is quite likely), if they are anywhere between being good enough to actually perform well, and being good enough to not break the law too much, they will linger like a chronic disease, wasting people's money, offering sub-par medical advice, and so on, while being cheered by their patients as the best deal ever.
This is the problem with alternative medicine. The bar to financial success is much much lower than the bar to success in terms of doing good. Most startups that look like they look would fail, and most of the rest would be doing damage.
edit: comments here: https://news.ycombinator.co... are very interesting. " > $5,000 (Surface); $25,000 (Depth); $250,000 (Comprehensive); $1,000,000 (Original Research) " .
edit2: https://news.ycombinator.co... is hilarious. Their sample reports for $5000 insomnia and $10000 H. Pylori definitely do leave an impression, though, that their business model permits use of philosophy majors for medical 'research'.