Comment grokkage (Score 1) 194
I see a lot of these postings disparaging the book's concept because it is supposedly unlikely to apply consistently to things that require logical analysis.
In radiology we're routinely looking at images that contain more information than can be systematically evaluated; you can't look at every thing on every scan. Certainly there are lists of things to check for in particular situations, but I find that when there is an abnormality, I nearly always first mentally register it as somehow 'wrong' - only afterward do I figure out why it seemed wrong to me.
In evaluation of things with more variables than we can keep track of - that is, when it's more pattern recognition than systematic analysis - I think the book's concept is useful. At least for me, it resonates with some of the things I do during the day. I thus feel compelled to give the guy his share of mad props.
In radiology we're routinely looking at images that contain more information than can be systematically evaluated; you can't look at every thing on every scan. Certainly there are lists of things to check for in particular situations, but I find that when there is an abnormality, I nearly always first mentally register it as somehow 'wrong' - only afterward do I figure out why it seemed wrong to me.
In evaluation of things with more variables than we can keep track of - that is, when it's more pattern recognition than systematic analysis - I think the book's concept is useful. At least for me, it resonates with some of the things I do during the day. I thus feel compelled to give the guy his share of mad props.
