What Geek Media Do You Refuse To Partake In?

[GrimCo]

I’m definitely off fantasy/sci-fi series. I seem to often find the first book interesting but it usually ends on a cliffhanger and then the remaining books are various flavours of tedious and disappointing. I much prefer standalones (or maybe books in a shared world, like Vernon’s Paladin books) but I really have no time for the Sanderson model. There are a couple of exceptions, usually shorter series, such as Novik’s Scholomance series.

Same. While Wheel of time is top of the list for series i won't touch, same goes for most books that i discover after there are already 2, 3 or more sequels out. Exceptions are series i stared reading when there was only first book out ( like Dresden Files) or series that are not directly connected by plot and you can read in any order you like. My dislike for series stems from 25+ years ago, when our library or book store usually didn't have complete series, so you had like 2,4,5th or any other combo, but never all of them, or quite a few times no first one.

Personally, i never got into audio books. It's either pacing or tone of voice or something that just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[jian]

Same. While Wheel of time is top of the list for series i won't touch, same goes for most books that i discover after there are already 2, 3 or more sequels out. Exceptions are series i stared reading when there was only first book out ( like Dresden Files) or series that are not directly connected by plot and you can read in any order you like. My dislike for series stems from 25+ years ago, when our library or book store usually didn't have complete series, so you had like 2,4,5th or any other combo, but never all of them, or quite a few times no first one.

Personally, i never got into audio books. It's either pacing or tone of voice or something that just rubs me the wrong way.

What I find quite odd is when I’m looking at Kindle daily deals or other book deals and they’re offering #4 in a fantasy series for £1. What good is that to most people?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, i never got into audio books. It's either pacing or tone of voice or something that just rubs me the wrong way.

Never done those either.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Assessing A-level students on diagnostic skills they haven’t been taught and therefore don’t possess is not wise. I don’t think I had any useful diagnostic skills when I was 18

It not specifically “diagnostic skills” it’s any form of problem solving or critical thinking, and it’s certainly true that it’s not taught anying like enough in schools, although it also helps to have some inherent aptitude. If you couldn’t do it at 18 then I’m glad you aren’t my doctor, because I could do it at 8. That’s the problem - it’s far too easy to study Medicine without having the skills that really matter. You memorised stuff from a book? Big deal.

doesn’t necessarily say anything about the doctors involved, unless it was the same doctor every time. In which case, yes, cause for concern

Several doctors, and it says something about the medical profession in general - how they are recruited, and how they are trained - most can only diagnose common conditions and trot out the officially sanctioned licenced drug.

 

[jian]

It not specifically “diagnostic skills” it’s any form of problem solving or critical thinking, and it’s certainly true that it’s not taught anying like enough in schools, although it also helps to have some inherent aptitude. If you couldn’t do it at 18 then I’m glad you aren’t my doctor, because I could do it at 8. That’s the problem - it’s far too easy to study Medicine without having the skills that really matter. You memorised stuff from a book? Big deal.

Several doctors, and it says something about the medical profession in general - how they are recruited, and how they are trained - most can only diagnose common conditions and trot out the officially sanctioned licenced drug.

No, this is entirely untrue and you’re speaking from a position of complete ignorance, I fear. Medical students have to learn a massive amount of information by rote initially - anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, neurology, pharmacology, epidemiology, just for starters - before they can start to learn to correlate that information into pattern recognition. You don’t learn any of this stuff at A-level and you have no functional diagnostic skills at 8 or 18. Sure, I had a good memory for facts and a skill for correlating trivia when I was 8 (as I do now) and while it’s a useful talent, diagnosis is completely different and a learned skill you don’t pick up until you’ve had at least five years of medical training.

As for the profession in general, I of course find your generalisation highly insulting. I’m trained to recognise several thousand* common conditions and respond with several thousand common treatments. I’m trained to recognise red flags for thousands more uncommon conditions, and trust my instincts when nothing quite fits. This all takes up far more memory than anything else I know about and requires constant refreshing. This is true for most doctors, especially generalists like GPs. Rare and deceptive conditions are hard to diagnose and frequently not picked up, and I’m sorry it’s happened to your partner more than most, but I’m afraid that doesn’t necessarily reflect anything about the profession or the individual doctor who made the mistake that day.

*Yes, I’ve counted.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, this is entirely untrue and you’re speaking from a position of complete ignorance, I fear. Medical students have to learn a massive amount of information by rote initially - anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, neurology, pharmacology, epidemiology, just for starters - before they can start to learn to correlate that information into pattern recognition

The ability to correlate information and recognise patterns does not require you to first stuff your brain with huge amounts of information. If you think it’s an ability specific to the medical profession, then you have already failed to understand how it works. It’s something people start to learn to do as small children, and if you don’t pick it up then you will always find it difficult. It’s certainly not something you can easily learn as an adult. Don’t believe me? Read up on educational theory.

As for the profession in general, I of course find your generalisation highly insulting. I’m trained to recognise several thousand* common conditions and respond with several thousand common treatments

Sure, there are a great many common conditions. Those are the medical equivalent of trash mobs. It’s the uncommon conditions, or the common conditions that appear different because the patient has multiple overlapping conditions, that matter.

 

[jtylerk]

Take the doc/medical discussion to pm or a separate thread.

Apologies, I guess I got spun up-I need to turn on an old firefly episode or some other boring and overrated show so I can settle down!

 

[jtylerk]

..

 

[Richards]

(Christopher Lee also played Sherlock several times, and was rather good.)

I have to disagree with this statement, for Christopher Lee, in his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, did something I found to be inexcusable.

Most Holmes stories have a section that goes something like this:

Holmes: "[Describes something off-the-wall about a given person]"​

​

Watson: "How could you possibly know that, Holmes?"​

​

Holmes: "[Gives a detailed listing of his observations and how they inevitably lead to the conclusions he drew]"​

​

Watson: "Well, when you explain it like that, then yes, it is rather obvious."​

But when Christopher Lee played Sherlock Holmes, that scene went something like this:

Holmes: "[Describes something off-the-wall about a given person]"​

​

Watson: "How could you possibly know that, Holmes?"​

​

Holmes (irritated): "Never mind about that."​

What? You can't even be bothered to come up with a reasonable explanation about how Holmes deduced that bit of trivia based on his observations of the subject at hand? Why am I even bothering watching this movie?

Johnathan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be fair, that was more likely the fault of the screenwriters than Lee.