Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Livewire322
You mean people that recently graduated into an environment that is hostile to people that don't follow the status quo?i.e. if you take my position and don't accept that their is a problem you are ostracized.
Do I seem like someone that follows the status quo for the fear of being ostracized?
Your premise sounds like a good way to throw out everything that has ever, and will ever come out of a higher learning institution. So then who do you trust to do your professional research for you? A hay farmer? A PR think tank?
why don't you look into the available information, and if their remains significant doubt on your behalf, we can discuss your concerns that are directly relevant to the research in question. Attacking the source of the information isn't a valid argument. It's called ad-hoc, and is not productive.
Bias recognition is one of the 6 critical thinking skills. There's a method to that too. I'm not sure why it is a surprise to you that someone such as a dr, would have had their brains trained in such a matter. The thing about heuristic bias though, knowledge of the bias doesn't prevent it from being used in the decision making process.
Quote:
causation has been established, and it's a commonly accepted issue in the field.
Quote:
By whom in the field? Management? People in the public eye? Did you ever consider that these people may just be saying these things to protect their jobs because speaking out against "native rights" activists is a career limiting move?
everyone. Most people in medicine have incredible job security. I doubt that is much of a concern for them. Their integrity is more important.
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarekG
Or maybe Doctors (you know, the ones with the actual day to day experience dealing with these people) are treating patients differently for good reason?
Do you think the term "frequent flyer" was made up as a derogatory term or maybe, juuuuust maybe a stereotype was being fulfilled to have them labelled as such?
Yes this is all true, but based on this statement, I'd say it's clear you are unclear about what bias is. It means there is a stereotype that is hard to think around. So while most of the FN you see as a DR, are indeed drug addicts and other dysfunctional frequent flyers, it doesn't mean that the individual you are treating in that moment is. That's the problem.
Justifying the bias doesn't make it go away or solve any of the problems resulting from it. Does that make sense? Decision making biases are evolutionary relics, that have no place in higher order thinking; including the practice of medicine. Pilots will be able to tell you a lot about this stuff too.
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
How timely.
Should historical figures be judged by modern ethical standards?
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/
Look Jazzy:
Yes 108(17 %)
No 540(83 %)
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Livewire322
I hope that that clears things up for you. Truth be told I don't care what model is used, if the paper is published in "Canadian Woman Studies" it is garbage.
Why is it garbage?
What about all the other journals articles that I've linked to like BMC Health, The Lancet, Western journal of nursing research etc etc.
Regardless of the journal you will say the same thing and disregard the findings because you haven't even reviewed any of the articles.
You readily admit that people are treated differentially and support studies of such (despite that article not being experimental at all), yet continue to state that the multiple streams of data and different research articles that I've link to demonstrating FN are treated differently are invalid without having ever read any of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Livewire322
I agree that a health care professional taking into account all factors when making a diagnosis is useful. Your dismissal of the problem was premature though. A recent example that has been in the media spotlight is:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pono...t-shaming/amp/
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jassmine
Why is it garbage?
What about all the other journals articles that I've linked to like BMC Health (found it), The Lancet, Western journal of nursing research etc etc. I take no issue with The lancet or WJNR.
Regardless of the journal you will say the same thing and disregard the findings because you haven't even reviewed any of the articles.
Now you are just putting words in my mouth.
You readily admit that people are treated differentially and support studies of such (despite that article not being experimental at all)
I didn't say that it was experimental, I was using it to prove a point that natives aren't the only people that are singled out in the medical system. In general I find that people get butt hurt about natives being treated unfairly and act as if the rest of society isn't also treated unfairly in some respect.
yet continue to state that the multiple streams of data and different research articles that I've link to demonstrating FN are treated differently are invalid without having ever read any of them?
My main issue with what you've posted is that you included two articles from questionable sources (Canadian Woman Studies, and Ethnicity and Health) and treated it as if it was gospel. Don't cite poor sources and I'll take you seriously.
Getting back to the topic at hand, how does any of this justify restricting land access to people? The matter at hand is whether or not NStQ first nations should be granted title to a large tract of land, and further, if they should be allowed to tell Joe public that they aren't welcome on that land. I will clarify that this land is currently available for use by all, equally, without fee.
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Try being friends instead of adversary and maybe hunting on land won't be an issue to fight over, butt one to join in togedder.
Jel -- Like at the Bar -- try being friendly, smiling a bit -- u can meet people, if you want to --
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Livewire322
My main issue with what you've posted is that you included two articles from questionable sources (Canadian Woman Studies, and Ethnicity and Health) and treated it as if it was gospel. Don't cite poor sources and I'll take you seriously.
Getting back to the topic at hand, how does any of this justify restricting land access to people? The matter at hand is whether or not NStQ first nations should be granted title to a large tract of land, and further, if they should be allowed to tell Joe public that they aren't welcome on that land. I will clarify that this land is currently available for use by all, equally, without fee.
Some " members" are still caught up on "indigineous rights" about the alleged and not confirmed abuse from residence schools and claim damage was done instead of true progress.
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pemby_mess
Do I seem like someone that follows the status quo for the fear of being ostracized?
I have no idea who you are, nor can I speak to your character.
Your premise sounds like a good way to throw out everything that has ever, and will ever come out of a higher learning institution. So then who do you trust to do your professional research for you? A hay farmer? A PR think tank?
It's does because it is. I don't trust many people to do professional research in an unbiased manner. I could trust a research institute, a hay farmer, or a PR think tank but I wouldn't be doing so blindly or from an uninformed position and it would greatly depend on what they were trying to sell. I have a high level of skepticism because I've been in academia for nearly a decade and seen the kind of trash that passes as science these days.
why don't you look into the available information, and if their remains significant doubt on your behalf, we can discuss your concerns that are directly relevant to the research in question. Attacking the source of the information isn't a valid argument. It's called ad-hoc, and is not productive.
You'll have to be explicit, what exactly do you expect me to look into? The articles that Jassmin posted? I'm reading through them at my leisure.
Attacking the source of information is not a valid argument, you are right. However, recognizing that a journal/organization is biased at its face value is a valid tool.
Bias recognition is one of the 6 critical thinking skills. There's a method to that too. I'm not sure why it is a surprise to you that someone such as a dr, would have had their brains trained in such a matter. Again, you'll need to be more clear with what you are trying to say
The thing about heuristic bias though, knowledge of the bias doesn't prevent it from being used in the decision making process.
everyone. That's quite a sweeping generalization. I know at least one that wouldn't agree with you.
Most people in medicine have incredible job security. I doubt that is much of a concern for them. Their integrity is more important.
If you are in medicine and you think that your job is so iron clad, why don't you try arguing that natives aren't discriminated against. I give you a month before you end up in some dark corner far from the public or fired.
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Gotta be retired or wood not be able to be so open, when employed a person must watch what they say to who?
Jel -- when retired a person can be more open about anything, not so when employed --
Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Livewire322
If you are in medicine and you think that your job is so iron clad, why don't you try arguing that natives aren't discriminated against. I give you a month before you end up in some dark corner far from the public or fired.
right you are, because at that point it would be clear that I hadn't kept up with basic research, and wasn't fulfilling a critical role for which I had been assigned. Given the responsibilities involved, it would be putting the public at risk, backed up by the evidence you scorn without even the slightest effort to understand reality.