[FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Obviously. But it's a bit revisionist to project our data-driven inductivism back into the past. The not-true, not-false hand-waving McLaren points out was not a Noble lie told to prep everyone for the day when induction would work. They were spreading bullsh¡t for their own purposes.

Had they been more authentic, like the biologists I've run across, and admitted their theory isn't unquestionably coherent, the spread of bullsh¡t would have been mitigated.

But whatever, I agree with your previous sentiment that what matters is that an insight obtained and tracing the learning algorithm at work. With the for-profit Epic holding > 48% market share in EHR, we do stand a chance of effective induction, even if Epic's business model is a little too much like SAP. Upper ontologies might save our butts at this point, helping harmonize all that very crappy and disparate induction-thwarting data.

And I just noticed I conflated a man (Szasz) with a variety of hops (Saaz), that must be me observing myself preparing to brew. 8^D

On 4/29/21 5:04 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Following up on Frank's remark, there are these HUGE electronic health & biobank efforts (UK, VA, Kaiser, Explorys), that give testable hypothesis through population-based statistical inference.  They give no insight as to why certain relations exist, but I don't think it is fair to expect there be a "model of the mental order" in order to identify deviations from normalness that are undesired, and then use evidence-based methods to suggest drugs to test.   It is just that until recently it couldn't be done at scale.
> Some of the testing might identify side-effects or long term health risks.  That doesn't mean the effort is bullshit.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:08 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf
> 
> To make that claim, you'd have to walk through all the medicine that's happening, analgesics, physical therapy, acupuncture, dentistry, etc.. Walking through the psychiatry that's happening is a much smaller task. I agree there does seem to be a lot of it, though ... I just  have no idea if it's *most*.
> 
> As long as I'm logging opinions, I'd answer Jon's question about psycho*dynamics* with the idea I think I got from Thomas Saaz, that it's fundamentally about creating a therapist-patient relationship ... dovetailing 2 types of raw persuasion/manipulation in order to achieve the ends of the therapist or patient (or both). My guess is the tone of that coercion depends deeply on the 2 parties. Some authoritarian therapists may rely on daddy-mommy-child constructs. Others may be more egalitarian, pushing the ethical boundaries on friendship with one's patients. Etc. Lots of people who lack intimate relationships might come to a better place through such intentional relationship forming.
> 
> But it needn't be through psychodynamics. I know a few people who've done it with their fitness coach, or life coach. One guy I knew back in Texas regularly visited a round-robin of prostitutes. I joke with my bartenders that I pay them to be my friends ... Good jokes must have some truth in them.
> 


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ