Somewhere in the middle

I have always loved this assumption of equivalence that many people have, and is pushed endlessly by the media. It's just not true. There is right, and there is wrong, but people often lack the critical skills to make simple determinations. I see it all day long, every single day, in my job. It is the most common human trait I expect.

For instance, I just sent this email out to a bunch of people.. understanding of course that it may not make any sense without context, but still..

For Surgery (only), it may not be a "clinician" that must provide a diagnosis, or respond to SC/EI questions, but somebody does or the case cannot be completed.

Each Surgical case must have at least one CPT code, and at least one Diagnosis code. If the patient has any SC or EI factors, somebody must answer the question as to whether or not it applies to each diagnosis code.

None of it is optional, none of it can be bypassed, and Surgery does not reference any "switches".

For a bit of context, the discussion centers around data sets that are captured in the "mother of all databases" at the VA. Some management types and functional analysts have been insisting that the VA's Surgery system does one thing, because they lump it in with other applications where their viewpoint is correct.

I wrote the programming for the surgery system that is in question. I'm one of the last people that get pulled into the discussion, and then they act like I'm wrong when I tell them how it works.

That's because they are stupid as fuck people who think in terms of equivalence. They think that because 6 other applications in the patch function a certain way, Surgery does as well, even if the guy who did all the programming tells them it doesn't work that way. I'm having a god awful time telling them how it works, and my language is getting increasingly coarse with each email I send out. The next time I respond to the email thread, I'm likely going to put in, "look, I designed and coded all of this functionality and I'm telling you how it works as the most authoritative person in the world to make the judgment. You ignore this at your own peril."

Now, I'll get to the point;

The same exact type of thinking applies in politics in a huge way. It's exceptionally common in the news media. The people I work with really aren't stupid as fuck (they aren't nearly as close to IQ as the engineers anyway, but they're not stupid), they just lack the ability to understand cause and effect, and filter extraneous information. News media pundits and reporters are not stupid people. They are typically very good with language, and have quality writing skills, but they aren't engineers or scientists, hence lack the skills for determining what is true and what is false. Throw in the pressures they must get from editors, and you can see how a great deal in the media is just a big pile of moronic bullshit.

People who are not critical thinkers are highly dangerous in any aspect of life. In my work situation, these are people that are making decisions about health care systems that affect tens of thousands of patients. When you look at private sector hospitals, and the rates that they mis-dispense medications that actually kill people, it's appalling. The VA's rate of death due to mid-dispensed drugs is actually much lower than the national average because engineers here fight tooth and nail against the stupid people, and by stupid people, I'm again referencing management and "analyst" types. By definition, they are management and analyst because they aren't smart enough to code.

The same is true in politics. Poorly designed and coded computer systems can cause death, and poorly thought out politics and journalism can cause deaths.

The "angry liberal" is one such misnomer that has become a pervasive topic of discussion in the media. It's a big pile of bullshit. It is true some people are angry, but the perception is that the left is an unhinged rabid bunch of delusional America haters. Those formulating that opinion, and reinforcing in the media, are exactly the kind of people I battle day in and day out in my job, who are frankly too stupid to have an opinion.

The issue isn't even if the left is "angry". The issue is, are those people expressing themselves on the left correct or not? Stupid people get hung up on the tone, and as I always say, that's because the vast majority of people are more concerned with presentation over substance.

Meanwhile, over on the right wing, daily the most prominent bloggers and pundits are calling everyone who disagrees with the chimp-in-chief a "traitor" and encouraging prosecution and death for those that disagree with their point of view. They are publishing addresses of NY Times reporters and encouraging their readers to "hunt them down" and kill them.

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent essay on this topic, here. He wonders why the news media is so fascinated by the liberal grass roots movements, and completely ignore the totally insane mainstream right wing.

The reason is simple Glenn. The reason is because the vast majority of human beings are totally unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and instinctively push everything onto the same plane.

Howard Kurtz is a "big time" pundit. Check out this exchange;

Philly, Pa: Howard, come on…"Seems to me there is considerable anger on both sides."

Are you serious? What lefty blogs or pundits have called for the hunting of reporters? What lefty blogs or pundits have called for the gassing of those they disagree with (Melanie Sloan), or the firing squad (Coulter)? There is definitely a difference!

Howard Kurtz: If you got the email I get, you’d know that passions run high on both sides. I don’t know of any liberals who have suggested that journalists be executed, but many are plenty angry at media coverage of Bush, Iraq, you name it.

Confronted with the truth, Kurtz instinctively puts the "anger" of the left at policy on the same moral plane as death threats from the right.

Howard Kurtz could never write a computer program.... and if he worked here, he'd be one of those guys arguing with me over programs that I wrote.