Posted on May 3 at 10:42 p.m.Suggest removal

Congratulations to Franz! I'm sure he will do his best.

On

Posted on April 6 at 8:03 a.m.Suggest removal

The author missed an important issue. Doctors and any sort of diagnostician are imperfect at their job. It is very difficult to accurately diagnose physiological or psychological disorders. Doctors often ignore base rates and often give a different diagnosis one week than they did the week before for the same symptoms. HOWEVER, that is no reason to allow people to diagnose themselves. If doctors have problems diagnosing individuals, then those individuals themselves will have even more problems. The idea of people self-diagnosing themselves is ignorant and dangerous. The person may diagnose themselves incorrectly and will often not try to correct their mistake. For example, to use the author's case, they may diagnose themselves with ADHD. Now, after the person has self-diagnosed and self-prescribed his medication, no matter what (i.e. whether or not he has the disease), he will do "better." 1. Because ADHD drugs generally make everybody do "better" (i.e. higher grades) and 2. The ubiquitous placebo effect. The difference between the doctor and the normal everyday person is that the doctor knows the base rates of diseases, co-morbidity and many other complex issues. For example, most people may not know (and WebMD may not always express) that many people are diagnosed with ADHD even though they actually have Grave's Disease. A solution: actuarial models. Should still have a doctor make a decision because they are aware of the extremely complex issues that arise in medical diagnosis, but a model will always be more consistent than any doctor.
Also, is the author assuming that we must all be "self-owners" in order to live in this society? He needs to realize that things are not so easily clear-cut as being Mentally Retarded or Autistic. Many diseases exist on a spectrum. So, just because I am not diagnosed with autism does not mean that I do not have traits of being autistic. Indeed, most people have traits of these diseases, but not to the extent that they are dysfunctional. So, if I happen to have some traits of having the predisposition to drug addiction and I have a surgery and need pain pills, say that two weeks later I still "think" I need pain pills. Does that mean that I am not a "self-owner" and that I deserve the immense suffering that will inevitably occur, given that I will probably still think I am in pain and will therefore continue to prescribe myself drugs? Without someone who has the legal authority to stop me from taking pain killers, then I will probably do immense damage to my body and my ability to function as a citizen. Are you saying that non-"self-owners" deserve this because they cannot "control" themselves? Tell me, to what extent does anybody really have control of their lives? I am thinking they have some control of their lives, but consciousness is not as causally efficacious as we tend to believe (I would recommend reading some Dan Dennett or watching his lecture on "deflating consciousness" on Ted.com or youtube).

On

Posted on October 1 at 9:04 a.m.Suggest removal

Habitat for Humanity is a good thing, but they went about it in a fashion that is completely counterintuitive. Any political activist knows that the best way to get their message heard is NOT through being belligerent, but through peaceful protest. Coercion of any sort is intolerable, blocking a biking lane is just that. Nolley needs to realize that 1) not everybody has change, perhaps they should advertise in advance...that would be a good idea. 2) being annoying or coercive in any form does NOT help the cause. People do not like to give money to others if they are being so aggressive. It is also, by the way, somewhat dangerous to block the biking lane. People bike and during the rush periods in between classes the walking area is too full to bike. Also, I think it is important to mention that one or two days of standing out there and asking for money is nice (just as, i'm sure, it's really fun to spend the night on the South Oval with friends), but this is not the only way nor is it the most effective way to help the impoverished or homeless. If you're going to be self-righteous, I hope it's at least well-founded.

On