Misdiagnosis

by larc 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  larc

  Well, fine ladies and handsome gentlemen,

  I have been fluffy as of late, so I thought I would give a shot once again at a serious subject, to wit, the subject of diagnosing people here in cyberspace. I have read many labels here, e.g., troll, lier, and hypocrite, etc.

  Now, when using such terminology, one may be right or wrong. In this situation, there are four possibilities. Let me use the example of the word "troll" to illustrate my point. Here are the four possibilities. 1. Someone is called a troll, and, in fact, they are a troll. That is called a "true positive". 2. Someone is called a troll and they are not. That is called a "false positive." 3. Someone is judged not to be a troll and they are not a troll. That is called a "true negative." 4. Someone is deemed not to be a troll, and in fact, they are a troll. That is called a "false negative."
  
  Of the various possibilities, the one that bothers me the most, are the false positives - someone being labeled a troll and they are not a troll. This misdiagnosis here in our community does a great deal of harm.

  I will come back later with examples of harm I have seen here because of this misdiagnosis at a later time. I am done for now, because I am tired of writing words.
• 

  refiners fire

  a false positive is....someone who is a troll but is not called a troll...no, thats not right...or is it?
  Ahk! Just cut to the chase already.
• 

  larc

  refiner's fire,

  A false positive is someone who labeled or judged as a troll, when in fact, they are not a troll at all.
• 

  larc

  rf,

  You want me to cut to the chase? Alright, I will. Bottom line is, don't fuck up other people's lives when they come to visit here, and you don't know much about them. Keep your ignorant, asshole comments to yourself. Show a little retraint until you are really sure about the situation. Give people the benefit of the doubt, for Christ's sake! Beating the shit out of someone is not an honorable activity.

  For the long time posters - beating each other up is not very honorable either.
• 

  hawkaw

  Larc,

  Did you have a good xmas?

  I don't usually talk to you but this is one I do wish to add my humble two cents worth because I think I may have been part of the problem.

  I agree with the labels and with your statement. But in the same breath I must admit that I know what I have said to Joe A. - not the troll lablel - but I have nailed him to the wall - My patience wasn't the best.

  In any event I was wrong to nail his ass to the wall calling him a liar in public. I should really thank him for keeping this UN thing alive.

  So I will try to restrain myself from such comments. Thanks for the reminder. I appreciate it.

  hawk
• 

  OUTLAW

  Ha-Ha!Hey larc,you sure are a character.Your first post was-uh,well I had to read it a couple of times.Your second post was quite clear(LOL).You always keep me laughing,I never know what your going to say next...OUTLAW
• 

  larc

  OUTLAW,

  I am glad that you enjoyed my stuff. I always have liked your stuff as well.

  I never thought about it until after I had written my little diddy, but I think the academic post followed by the down and dirty post made a real nice contrast.

  I am not really a multiple personality, but my persona in real life is pretty much like my cyber persona. As my boss said about me once, in my presence, "Carl is the kind of guy that can shovel the shit out of the barn and then go dine with the Queen." By the way my boss talks, I think you can see that we were kindred spirits.
• 

  teejay

  Of the various possibilities, the one that bothers me the most, are the false positives - someone being labeled a troll and they are not a troll. This misdiagnosis here in our community does a great deal of harm.

  Why does that bother you the most, Larc?
• 

  larc

  Teejay,

  Why does it bother me? Because it drives people out of here that could benefit. They almost did it to Hillary, but he came back. One of the diagnosticians, who gave him the lable and who stomped on him, later apologized, but what about those who never come back because they got their ass kicked for no reason. That is why it bothers me.
• 

  teejay

  False positives are troublesome to me also. I've been 'diagnosed' that way many times here.

  But then, there are some who'd come along and offer the sage wisdom that "it's up to the misdiagnosed to decided how they will respond to the misdiagnosis. Hillary left? Then, it's Hillary's fault." Mind you, I don't believe that "sage wisdom," but I've heard that said and many agree with it. Indeed, in returning he was able to demonstrate that he was not who some said he was. The burden of proof was on him, however.

  Using Hillary as a further example, those who may have been persuaded to believe what was said about him is due to the respect others conferred on those making the claim about him. Perhaps their labeling of Hillary was viewed as "sage wisdom" because they have the reputation of being smart, intelligent, reasonable or otherwise a good thinker.

  That's why here (and more importantly in r/l) false negatives bother me the most because they are the most harmful and dangerous. Sure, false positives have the potential of hurting the one, but false negatives have the clear potential of hurting the many. JWs are a good example of why that misdiagnosis is the worst. Examples of the same exist here on the board, imo. A person who is 'looked up to' is far more likely to be believed and followed, whether that one is deserving or not.