josh_phd_bmore said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

josh_phd_bmore said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

andrew_nyc said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

andrew_nyc said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Coming at andrew_nyc’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.