--- In email@example.com
> Hehe, maybe Harvard knows more than we think.
> My test was on idealism/realism. ;)
> That's pretty good that Harvard's program could
> outdiagnose 85% of doctors. What I'd like to know
> is: who is checking? At any rate, given that one
> of the major drug companies (Glaxo?) recently published a
> notice that pharmaceutical drugs usually only work
> for 35-50% of the people for which they are prescribed,
> I wonder if Harvard was also checking for efficacy of
> diagnosis as regards 'results'...
The Harvard compu-tests dealt with Appropriate diagnosis---
as in...with this set of symptoms,
what is going on - IE What illness or injury is
happening. Secondly, they looked for appropriate treatment...
IE: What do you next do about it.
Results aren't that much of a factor, as just by
going to a doctor (witch-type included:-), you'll
find a 90%+ favorable outcome result. Ah, the power of Belief!
PS: Care to share your test results?
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> medit8ionsociety <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Nina"
> > <murrkis@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
> > >
> > > Nina
> > Dear Ninaji,
> > Thanks for the interesting link.
> > Well, the test I took shows I seem to
> > have a slight preference towards the
> > young vs the old. And I guess that's
> > about right. But what I am sure of is
> > that I disliked taking these kinds of
> > tests when I was young, and still do
> > now that I'm old:-)