adaloveslace

This explains something that's been bothering me. I started reading lesswrong very recently, though I would have been aware of some less than generous caricatures of the community for a long time prior. Initially when I started reading the Sequences I was pleasantly shocked, thinking that a community based off these principles would be incredibly useful and productive. I hope I don't come across too harshly when I say that I don't know so far that everything I've read in the sort of general rationalsphere has reflected the utopian productive discussion I h... (read more)

I like this and feel it is useful, though an important corollary of this heuristic is that you have to know how much time you will need for the task. This year I at one point had to get a serious deadline moved at (or actually, slightly after) the last minute as I was unable to meet it. I have a tendency to work as you propose but since returning to work after my maternity leave, my internal clock for when to start work pre-deadline was way off. My previous 'last minute' was based on an expectation that I could use my downtime to meet a deadline, whereas now with a baby my downtime is inflexible. My estimates of how long something will take me are improving (after a brief overcorrection).

This is an argument with some merit presented in a slightly antagonistic way. Some specific thoughts.

First, the case for competence. This post argues that they are not competent on the grounds that:

• They should be able to reliably diagnose diseases they are trained to diagnose and should be knowledgeable at the standard to qualify as a doctor. If evidence against this were presented here it would be a concern, however the evidence presented mainly demonstrates that:
• 1. they are not good at diagnosing rare diseases (this is not a typical use case for primary ca