diagnostician

"I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician." That is exactly my view as well.

> I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. That is a hell of a way to put it, and I totally agree.

And then separately, how many people would trust a self-taught diagnostician?

Hence Simon's distinction between 'diagnostician' and 'clinician.' It was Lenin and Mao that really tried to be the clinicians, anyway.

A diagnostician which crosses all specialties would be really nice. I imagine this is an area where an easily replicated computing tool might be the best advancement in the field.

And then separately, how many people would trust a self-taught diagnostician? I trust my car mechanics diagnosis despite the fact I have no idea what level of education he has.

The DSM and it's ilk make this worse by giving the public cosmo-style checklists they can run against themselves, without all the other contextual understanding that a diagnostician has. It is then made worse again with the DSM published on the internet.

This guy didn't have a halo on his head when I found him or a neon sign saying he was "The One." He was not the first person I was told was an amazing diagnostician or "like House." He was just one in a long line of doctors, albeit one of a small number that was compassionate, open-minded and listened.

One brother was exemplar diagnostician of all injuries and ills. It did not matter what was wrong, he could diagnose the problem and if he was unable to solve the problem he would make a personal introduction the most knowledgeable expert on the matter.

I asked around for someone who had a good reputation as a diagnostician. I asked doctors, business leaders, and hospital administrators.

Many are diagnosed with “autism”, seemingly not for any lack of ability, but præferences the diagnostician does not necessarily agree with. I also object to “neuro-” morpheme.

Your body is a diagnostician, albeit a cryptic one that has needs, demands and quirks of its own. Most of you simply do not know how to live in your skin because, for one, you were likely raised religious and you've learned how to spite your own "holy temple," not only with deeds but in your minds, your mental habits and cognitive hygiene.

I can watch an episode of House and anticipate "they obviously have lupus", which makes me feel intelligent and satisfied even though I can see they are planting obvious clues from the very start which a diagnostician would be mind-numbingly stupid to ignore. The same with the headline of this article.

The deliverable for a diagnostician ought to be a distribution over diagnoses. Duh. Learn 2 probability, docs

Further, a good diagnostician uses the results of an intelligence test to determine areas of strength and weakness, so while the overall score is used to satisfy the legal criteria for children when placing into special education, it's not the only criteria. tldr: Most modern tests stop at 160, so 167 is not possible in that context.

For example, getting an individual's blood sample in front of a diagnostician is a logistical or communication problem that can be solved similarly to any other information delivery bottleneck. It just happens to be carrying a stethoscope today.

I, for one, would not shed a tear if the role of human diagnostician is replaced by computer systems with far more raw data to work with than was ever before possible. Watching a family member with an extended illness, I came to the conclusion that we would be better off if doctors stopped thinking of themselves AS healthcare and were instead the human face of delivering healthcare.

Another aspect that is often underappreciated is that the HF aspie, if smart enough, can learn to adjust to normal society to such a degree that he/she can often pass for normal, so that a diagnostician would place him/her at a different point on the spectrum at different stages of life.

I have a much lesser scare story of my own that taught me this: you just have to be your own [family's] diagnostician. Fortunately in the age of the Internet and advanced search engines, you actually can be your own diagnostician. You have to learn to decide when you must have medical attention, and you must not accept dismissiveness from doctors. Yes, you must also not be a hypochondriac -- that will cost you money and crowd out others who need the care. But this is why you must... become good at being your own diagnostician. This is very much not what doctors want. It's not what the FDA wants. It's not what anyone should want. But the quality of care is so variable, and so dependent on someone noticing in less than the only five minutes they want to spare you, some detail that you have days to notice... that you just have to be your own diagnostician.