Indeed (and some authors argue that all our inferences are ultimately intuitive). But, the question is not so much that physicians (as all humans) rely on both
analytical and intuitive processes. The problem is both type of these cognitive processes can be right or wrong. The real question is if we can identify type of situations where we would be better off to rely on intuition vs deliberative analysis (and vice
verse).
ben
[Attention: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected
emails.]
I agree, Juan.
One of the challenges of medical practice (and education) is to use System 1 (intuition) and System 2 (deliberative, conscious thought) as they have evolved—synergistically.
A primary problem with the intuition (System 1) of physicians (and other members of the patient’s care team) is that medical education addresses System 2 almost exclusively, leaving System 1 to develop catch-as-catch-can, resulting in most
of the faux pas that System 2 zealots love to ridicule. If physicians were soccer players or piano players, we’d understand that all sophisticated practice is primarily System 1; we’d use System 2 primarily to refine System 1’s performance (and to support
that performance in the small number of boundary situations encountered).
Cheers!
It is time to stop the witch hunt on intuition, and see it for what it is: a fast, automatic, subconscious processing style that can provide us with very useful information that deliberate analysing can’t. We need to accept that intuitive
and analytic thinking should occur together, and be weighed up against each other in difficult decision-making situations.
-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas
2016-12-13 12:04 GMT+01:00 Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]>:
As psychologists have amply and repeatedly demonstrated,
the judgments and decisions of physicians (like those of other people) are based largely on our intuitions (Daniel Kahneman’s System 1).1,2 We look for patterns, learn quick rules of thumb, base our confidence on ease of retrieval and coherence (not
always on accuracy),3 and may substitute easy (but less relevant) judgments for difficult ones. We have limited capacities of attention and have trouble seeing what we are not looking for,4 but we also tend to maintain coherence by ignoring or distorting
information that does not support our initial hypotheses.5–7 Indeed, looking at the long catalogue of our biases,8 it is easy to forget that, mostly, we do quite well.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0272989x16662643#ref-14
2016-12-10 11:30 GMT+01:00 Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]>:
Los presentimientos: importantes en el proceso diagnóstico en medicina general/de familia. Desde Mallorca (España).
From Majorca (Spain) to the world.
Gut feelings are important in the diagnostic process in general practice.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/12/e012847.full…
-un saludo juan gérvas
2016-09-16 17:03 GMT+02:00 Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]>:
Pérdida de peso, no venía "nunca", síntomas persistentes..."huelen a cáncer". "Olfato" médico general. Vía @ernestob
GP's gut feeling for cancer: a useful tool in diagnosing cancer. High predicting value increases if the GP is older.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e012511.long …
-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas
To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1
To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1
*SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health
information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge
or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received
the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail,
please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (LCP301)
To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1
