Of course, it's of strong advantage to use computers as reference
tools, however, exactly the same tools are frequently used 'against'
patients because of well-known dependencies within countries related
health systems etc. Also, the doctor's final word again is a matter of
his view, education an
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 10:44:13 +, "P.G.Hamer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> > Computers do better than experts in making medical
> > diagnoses when the correct answer has to be from a narrow set.
>
> I think that some of the early systems also were better than humans
> a
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:42:02 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>alf>
>> The problem is not the existence of literature, the problem is the
>> content.
> [ snip, ... essentially 'cite the good literature, in great detail' ]
Not exactly -- I was asking for 'the good literature' in the
Rich Ulrich wrote:
> Computers do better than experts in making medical
> diagnoses when the correct answer has to be from a narrow set.
I think that some of the early systems also were better than humans
at identifying the possibility of unusual diagnoses. AFAIR it took the
humans to reach a fi
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:36:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred
Breull) wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:57:14 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Jim's statement is not a "view"; it is 100% correct: there *is* a
> >literature, and that does not depend at all on "your psychological .
I did some interview recently for our graduate intake.
The standard of candidate we had called for interview was so high that
I thought that we might as well select them at random.
The personnel people involved appeared to be selecting on
trivial criteria, for e.g. one candidate was marked down
be
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:57:14 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jim's statement is not a "view"; it is 100% correct: there *is* a
>literature, and that does not depend at all on "your psychological ...
>background."What makes your part "damnable" is that Jim wrote
>neatly and i
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:42:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alf
Breull) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:32:54 -0600, jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
jim > >
> >There is a considerable literature on clinical judgment (i.e.,
> >interview and human judgement) vs. actuarial predictions (i.e.,
> >pred
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:32:54 -0600, jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There is a considerable literature on clinical judgment (i.e.,
>interview and human judgement) vs. actuarial predictions (i.e.,
>predictions from demonstrably valid regression equations ...
>human judgment _might_ be used in
Hi
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, T.S. Lim wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Uebersax wrote:
> > > IMHO, psychological tests in this case should not substitute for a
> > > thorough interview and human judgment.
> > scores, but
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Uebersax wrote:
> > IMHO, psychological tests in this case should not substitute for a
> > thorough interview and human judgment.
> >
> > Just my .02 worth.
>
> There is a considerable literat
Hi
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Uebersax wrote:
> IMHO, psychological tests in this case should not substitute for a
> thorough interview and human judgment.
>
> Just my .02 worth.
There is a considerable literature on clinical judgment (i.e.,
interview and human judgement) vs. actuarial predictio
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:15:54 GMT, T.S. Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I was wondering if it's a common practice in Statistics to require job
>applicants to take a psychological test. At the MS/PhD level (in the
>US), I don't think it's common. However, some companies ask job
>applicants to take a
I've never heard of any statistician position requiring a psychological
test. Even when I worked at the RAND Corporation, where the position
involved some degree of defense-related research, it was not required.
(Frankly, if a firm required such a test, I would take that as a sign
that it is not
My apology for posting an off-topic message.
I was wondering if it's a common practice in Statistics to require job
applicants to take a psychological test. At the MS/PhD level (in the
US), I don't think it's common. However, some companies ask job
applicants to take a test like the GRE Quantitat
15 matches
Mail list logo
