This is practically a textbook example of why we are not supposed to treat friends and family: the inability to take an objective view.
Two phrases in this article stands out for me: "I was certain that I had the right condition when I finally came across Dandy-Walker Variant", followed not long after by "The fit, given my brother’s behavior, was remarkably good."
This was accompanied by some trash-the-experts discussion of a perfectly reasonable deliberative process in an ambiguous case.
The author is experiencing a colossal case of a) denial (in the psychological defence mechanism sense) and b) confirmation bias, and put his brother through unnecessary procedures out of the resulting tunnel vision. He throws around terms like "hypothesis" without any conception of what it means to formulate and test one, and references journal articles as supporting evidence like a desperate defence lawyer on a bad police procedural show.
Having self-justified forcing his brother through invasive and unnecessary procedures, he demonstrates utter lack of self-awareness with: "I noticed was that his speech, which had always been slurred, seemed distinctly clearer and faster to me, and still does." Like most cranks, despite having tossed around the idea of a hypothesis, the author still excuses himself from making a quantitative study.
What happened here is that an emotionally burdened guardian has been afforded the latitude to conduct an unethical, statistically meaningless and unscientific medical experiment on a subject incapable of giving informed consent. In my moral view, it is solely the motivation (apparently) borne of fraternal concern that separates the author from some extremely gruesome historical figures.
The lesson for those of us who make decisions every day, from the technical to the human, is to recognise the red flags signalled by an overloaded, hopelessly biased mind - and adjust our credulity accordingly.
Two phrases in this article stands out for me: "I was certain that I had the right condition when I finally came across Dandy-Walker Variant", followed not long after by "The fit, given my brother’s behavior, was remarkably good."
This was accompanied by some trash-the-experts discussion of a perfectly reasonable deliberative process in an ambiguous case.
The author is experiencing a colossal case of a) denial (in the psychological defence mechanism sense) and b) confirmation bias, and put his brother through unnecessary procedures out of the resulting tunnel vision. He throws around terms like "hypothesis" without any conception of what it means to formulate and test one, and references journal articles as supporting evidence like a desperate defence lawyer on a bad police procedural show.
Having self-justified forcing his brother through invasive and unnecessary procedures, he demonstrates utter lack of self-awareness with: "I noticed was that his speech, which had always been slurred, seemed distinctly clearer and faster to me, and still does." Like most cranks, despite having tossed around the idea of a hypothesis, the author still excuses himself from making a quantitative study.
What happened here is that an emotionally burdened guardian has been afforded the latitude to conduct an unethical, statistically meaningless and unscientific medical experiment on a subject incapable of giving informed consent. In my moral view, it is solely the motivation (apparently) borne of fraternal concern that separates the author from some extremely gruesome historical figures.
The lesson for those of us who make decisions every day, from the technical to the human, is to recognise the red flags signalled by an overloaded, hopelessly biased mind - and adjust our credulity accordingly.