I think that a problem with medical theories is that they will only ever explain a portion of outcomes, but we are forced to behave as if they are all-encompassing
-
Show this thread
-
You can't design an intervention based on a vague approximation cobbled together from multiple theoretical models - for one thing, they are often contradictory
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
So instead, we try to fit everything into a single model, even though individual models are never going to contain all of the complexity
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Reminds me of how my teacher approached her Personality psych class. There are many (3, 6, 8, more) theories of personality. But they all explain the same realities, more or less: it can be useful to use (eg) Freudian vocab to describe something for one person, etc. (Cont.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Doesn't mean forcing everything into one theory. It's more...keeping an open mind, a few languages. And use what you need in each case. Not sure how useful this type of thing is in medical theory. Bah. I'm not sure I'm explaining this clearly. (Do I even make any sense?)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Makes sense to me. The theory is used to explain observations, which are a muddle, which means the theories are a muddle. I think the issue comes when we try to apply that to interventions tho
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.