Moral Grandstanding

[Chartreuse Wombat]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict

Public discourse is often caustic and conflict-filled. This trend seems to be particularly evident when the content of such discourse is around moral issues (broadly defined) and when the discourse occurs on social media. Several explanatory mechanisms for such conflict have been explored in...

journals.plos.org

Discuss

 

[deleted774703]

Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict

Public discourse is often caustic and conflict-filled. This trend seems to be particularly evident when the content of such discourse is around moral issues (broadly defined) and when the discourse occurs on social media. Several explanatory mechanisms for such conflict have been explored in...

journals.plos.org

Discuss

Basically never trust anyone on social media who is constantly positive or says there are no issues

 

[evilbooyaa]

Did we need another thread for this paper, which has a conclusion that I interpreted as: 'wellllllllllll, duh'?

 

[RickyScott]

Virtue signalling, (really the same thing) seems to be a really hot topic lately- ( Sam Harris podcast on political correctness). Not at all surprising that those who engage in it frequently in our field are outing themselves as disingenuous.
i.e "I am so morally outraged by under representation of woman and minorities in our field" (despite vast majority of residents are not white males) signals that I am woke and morally superior.
I also have concerns about those with frequent twitter postings such as "Congratulations on the 3rd anniversary of our computer update to ARIA 15."

 

[OTN]

Trying really hard to get under-represented minorities and women into a field where the leaders are actively working to suppress salaries by increasing the supply of physicians (thanks for admitting it, Hallahan) doesn't seem too "woke" to me.

 

[RickyScott]

Trying really hard to get under-represented minorities and women into a field where the leaders are actively working to suppress salaries by increasing the supply of physicians (thanks for admitting it, Hallahan) doesn't seem too "woke" to me.

Yes, ultimate irony, is that you are totally screwing minorities and women by recruiting them to field where they face worsening geographic restrictions and salaries... (shows lack of insight just as Ralph will be losing out on high quality md/phd who will choose another field like medonc.)

 

[Lamount]

This forum has its own brand of "woke", calling out "academic privilege"... and plenty of "virtue signaling" with defamatory comments about Kachnick, Wallner, and Weichselbaum. No one accused of grandstanding ever agrees with that characterization.

 

[medgator]

defamatory comments about Kachnick, Wallner, and Weichselbaum.

Examples? Mentioning statements/facts about what those individuals say =/= defamation/libel about them btw.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about SDN, but the bottom line is, this forum brought things to the attention of medical students and eventually the leadership of RO with an intent to enact positive change for the specialty, creating information symmetry where none existed before.

 

[Lamount]

Examples? Mentioning statements/facts about what those individuals =/= defamation/libel btw.

Is it a fact that they are "greedy"? ... is it a fact that Wallner and Kachnick hatched a conspiracy to cut residency numbers by making the boards harder for a year? Common, be serious!

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about SDN, but the bottom line is, this forum brought things to the attention of medical students and eventually the leadership of RO with an intent to enact positive change for the specialty, creating information symmetry where none existed before.

...don't look now, but you are "virtue signaling".

But, of course you are correct: regarding these forums, I do have a chip on my shoulder. These forums used to be an asset to radiation oncology by shining light on rare cases, crowdsourcing difficult decisions, and providing transparency into our field for students and residents. Now it's just a bunch of complaining by the same people saying the same things... over, and over, and over gain.

To me, it's reasonable to vent about circumstances in our field being harder than they used to be. It's reasonable to criticize the policies and actions (not the integrity) of ASTRO and the leaders of our field. It's reasonable and necessary to posit ways to make things.

However, it is unreasonable to act aggrieved, given everything we have to be grateful for; it is lazy blame the circumstances of your life on evil academic straw men tapping their finger tips together, scheming to make your life harder; and lastly, it is utterly unproductive to spend your time kicking rocks and muttering in an anonymous forum spewing ad hominem attacks against people who have actually advanced the field.

You have spoken at length about what is wrong with radiation oncology, who's fault it is, and speculated ad nauseam about their nefarious motives. You certainly throw plenty of rocks. How have you helped?

 

[medgator]

.

You have spoken at length about what is wrong with radiation oncology, who's fault it is, and speculated ad nauseam about their nefarious motives. You certainly throw plenty of rocks. How have you helped?

Why don't you ask the med students that decided not to match into RO last year?

Or the folks on Twitter who maligned SDN a year ago and are now acknowledging the issues brought up on this forum?

 

[RickyScott]

Is it a fact that they are "greedy"? ... is it a fact that Wallner and Kachnick hatched a conspiracy to cut residency numbers by making the boards harder for a year? Common, be serious!





...don't look now, but you are "virtue signaling".

But, of course you are correct: regarding these forums, I do have a chip on my shoulder. These forums used to be an asset to radiation oncology by shining light on rare cases, crowdsourcing difficult decisions, and providing transparency into our field for students and residents. Now it's just a bunch of complaining by the same people saying the same things... over, and over, and over gain.

To me, it's reasonable to vent about circumstances in our field being harder than they used to be. It's reasonable to criticize the policies and actions (not the integrity) of ASTRO and the leaders of our field. It's reasonable and necessary to posit ways to make things.

However, it is unreasonable to act aggrieved, given everything we have to be grateful for; it is lazy blame the circumstances of your life on evil academic straw men tapping their finger tips together, scheming to make your life harder; and lastly, it is utterly unproductive to spend your time kicking rocks and muttering in an anonymous forum spewing ad hominem attacks against people who have actually advanced the field.

You have spoken at length about what is wrong with radiation oncology, who's fault it is, and speculated ad nauseam about their nefarious motives. You certainly throw plenty of rocks. How have you helped?

cant have much virtue signalling given forum is anon. I do agree with you about some of stuff said about Wallner. He really has very little involvment in 21C for instance and few times I have met him, I liked him. ,
You did post something to the effect of "I and my co residents found decent jobs when we graduated,"so therefore medstudents can take comfort in applying to radiation, which I think is very misleading.

 

[OTN]

1. Can't virtue signal in an anonymous forum. One of the main benefits to it.
2. I agree lots of the stuff about the boards got into conspiracy theory territory. However, when the ABR doesn't give anyone any information whatsoever, naturally other stories will fill the void. The blame lies at their feet.
3. The reason why this forum has complained ad nauseum about the job market and residency expansion is because, for many years, no one listened to us. As a result, we felt the need to continue to bring up the issue.
4. ASTRO and academic leadership have finally admitted that residency spots expanded far too quickly. I have no doubt that, without SDN's leading the charge on this, it would not even be getting addressed right now.
5. Helping medical students avoid a field where salaries are actively being suppressed by chairpersons via residency expansion (again, thanks Hallahan) is a productive endeavor with a net benefit to those medical students, society (no need to train more radoncs than needed), and currently practicing physicians.

 

[radoncgrad2019]

My name is Paul Wallner.

 

[Lamount]

Why don't you ask the med students that decided not to match into RO last year?

Or the folks on Twitter who maligned SDN a year ago and are now acknowledging the issues brought up on this forum?

So your contribution to the field is decreasing the pool of qualified applicants? Well done! Perhaps they will write a song about you one day.

What moves the ball (on Twitter and elsewhere) is making a cogent argument regarding issues/policies that are hurting radiation oncology. Demonizing people simply destroys your credibility as a rational actor.

 

[OTN]

So your contribution to the field is decreasing the pool of qualified applicants? Well done! Perhaps they will write a song about you one day.

What moves the ball (on Twitter and elsewhere) is making a cogent argument regarding issues/policies that are hurting radiation oncology. Demonizing people simply destroys your credibility as a rational actor.

We've been making those cogent arguments for YEARS.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

some people MAD here. Funny stuff. PW and LK deserve any criticism they got.

 

[medgator]

So your contribution to the field is decreasing the pool of qualified applicants? Well done! Perhaps they will write a song about you one day.

You prefer information asymmetry and ignoring the problem. Pretty unfair to med students imo and some would say, quite immoral of you to screw with the rest of people's careers by omitting key information to help students decide on a specialty

What moves the ball (on Twitter and elsewhere) is making a cogent argument regarding issues/policies that are hurting radiation oncology. Demonizing people simply destroys your credibility as a rational actor.

Which is what most of us have been doing all along for years now to get these issues the attention they deserve.

Instead you're trying to make it personal and gaslight us about what I have or, in fact, haven't done. Mission failed.

Honestly it sounds like you may feel more comfortable over in the radonc Twitter echo chamber where you won't see dissenting opinions and facts that are dissonant with your rad onc worldview

 

[Lamount]

We've been making those cogent arguments for YEARS.

I agree... and I know first hand that some posters here have actually written op-eds and commentaries raising these issues. Those making cogent arguments are not those ranting about "greedy academics"

 

[Lamount]

Honestly it sounds like you may feel more comfortable over in the radonc Twitter echo chamber where you won't see dissenting opinions and facts that are dissonant with your rad onc worldview

I Appreciate your concern but debate does not make me uncomfortable.

You prefer information asymmetry and ignoring the problem. Pretty unfair to med students imo and some would say, quite immoral of you to screw with the rest of people's careers by omitting key information to help students decide on a specialty

Immoral? You just took the virtue signaling up a notch.

Well, let me explain my perspective (you know, for the sake of "symmetry"). I was just in the job market. It is certainly tight and not as easy to get a great job as I heard about when I started residency. I had to make some sacrifices but ultimately was hired at a academic center in a major metro -the sort of job I always wanted, even when I started residency. It may not be as close to my family as I prefer, and it may have taken longer than I intended, but I am, nonetheless, very grateful. That is my experience... not hearsay, not second hand knowledge. But you seem think it is disingenuous for me to tell others that I am happy with my choice of speciality, despite the fact that things are harder than they used to be. Well, I am.

 

[medgator]

I was just in the job market. It is certainly tight and not as easy to get a great job as I heard about when I started residency. I had to make some sacrifices but ultimately was hired at a academic center in a major metro -the sort of job I always wanted, even when I started residency. It may not be as close to my family as I prefer, and it may have taken longer than I intended, but I am, nonetheless, very grateful. That is my experience...

And then you wonder why the quality of med student applicants goes down. At least you were honest in that post.

I know AMGs that have had to fellowship years in hopes of getting something close to their preferred geography job wise, even a few years ago. Not fun knowing you may have to spend an extra year post residency in an unaccredited fellowship because the job market is worse than you expected when you entered training.

But somehow I'm a bad person for pointing out the responsible parties (along with their potential motives) that have made the above situations more common with each passing year 🙄

 

[Lamount]

And then you wonder why the quality of med student applicants goes down. At least you were honest in that post.

I know AMGs that have had to fellowship years in hopes of getting something close to their preferred geography job wise, even a few years ago. Not fun knowing you may have to spend an extra year post residency in an unaccredited fellowship because the job market is worse than you expected when you entered training.

But somehow I'm a bad person for pointing out the responsible parties (along with their potential motives) that have made the above situations more common with each passing year 🙄

I don't know you personally, but I doubt you are a bad person as few people are. I do think you are wrong to demonize those who chose a different path from your own... and to ascribe nefarious motives to people that you have never met

...and I think it is bad advice to categorically tell med students to "stay away" from rad onc. The point of my story (which I have stated previously on SDN) is that, despite the fact that things were harder than I hoped they would be, I am happy with my choice. You try to portray everything as black and white, right and wrong... but things are rarely that simple. There are problems in our field and things are getting harder, but that doesn't mean that rad onc isn't the right field for many of the med students who read these forums... -more accurate to say that it is a great field with a tight job market that will probably get worse before it gets better.

 

[scarbrtj]

And then you wonder why the quality of med student applicants goes down. At least you were honest in that post.

I know AMGs that have had to fellowship years in hopes of getting something close to their preferred geography job wise, even a few years ago. Not fun knowing you may have to spend an extra year post residency in an unaccredited fellowship because the job market is worse than you expected when you entered training.

But somehow I'm a bad person for pointing out the responsible parties (along with their potential motives) that have made the above situations more common with each passing year 🙄

He was honest. And it was ironic? Complaining "...it is unreasonable to act aggrieved, given everything we have to be grateful for..." when it sounds like he/she was a little bit more at risk of being a jobless (or at least a dissatisfied) doctor than any other recent residency-graduated doctor I think has chance of being. But it was honest; and that deserves respect. I imagine the job market is, now, scary if not outright brutal. Again, reading Lamount's account, I would take it as a warning were I a med student. And for any current rad onc, being "aggrieved" would thus seem to be reasonable.

 

[Krukenberg]

-more accurate to say that it is a great field with a tight job market that will probably get worse before it gets better.

I think this is objectively a distillation of everything that’s talked about on this forum. Med students can weigh for themselves how much the job market negatives matter to them personally.

 

[deleted774703]

I think this is objectively a distillation of everything that’s talked about on this forum. Med students can weigh for themselves how much the job market negatives matter to them personally.

Agreed. SDN haters don't make any sense.

Ppl on Twitter who overly love radonc have just as much access to create an account and come say positive things on here if they truly believe this is the medium that is "exclusively causing the decline in applicants"

If they truly cared they would do that. Instead what we have is a bunch of virtue signaling on Twitter

 

[medgator]

. Those making cogent arguments are not those ranting about "greedy academics"

What would you call this?

DEFINE_ME

Our opinion is that there is a growing need for radiation oncologists in the United States. More importantly, there is a need for new training programs in the midwest and south.

As an example, the state of Missouri has only one training program. This shortage has, in part, resulted in an increase in salaries for radiation oncologists in academic programs, as demonstrated by the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty salary survey report

Or this?

 

[scarbrtj]

#radoncrocks

Can't read this as "rad onc rocks"; my brain insists on "Radon Crocks." As in, man that radon treatment is a crock. Now you can't unsee it 🙂