A PhD’s critique of MDs

As someone with a PhD who has a possibly genetic serious health problem, here are a few things I’ve noticed about medical doctors (MDs):

  • They often mistake beauty for health, or charisma for intelligence.
  • They often have a power fetish, such as enjoying having control over others’ lives and livelihoods, and being attracted to people in other professions where one has others’ lives in one’s hands (e.g., pilots).
  • They often assume: that the 10 minutes you were in their office accurately represent your life in general, that their behavior had no effect on yours, that what they tested about you accurately represents everything they didn’t test about you, and that anyone with “doctor” in their title must be the same kind of doctor that they are and have studied what they studied.
  • MDs spend so many years in very intensive, specialized educational and vocational programs that many of them seem to have stopped growing emotionally in their 20s, and maybe started again in their 40s.
  • If they can’t find/label the cause or your severe, chronic problem, even if you are in bad shape and unlikely to improve, they often are unwilling to help you any further, such as with obtaining disability assistance. That can be a tragic loophole in our society’s infrastructure.
  • They are often a good example that being paid what the market will bear is not the same as being paid what you’re worth.


Though I almost always disagree with Donald Trump, I will give him credit for one thing: unlike most politicians, he is very open/honest about how selfish, greedy, and angry of a person he is.

Social packaging of karmic sacrifices

As I understand, there is an interesting packaging that happens with voter registration, because some states use it as well as other databases (e.g., the driver’s license databases), as a pool for the jury duty lottery. So, by registering to vote (and presumably voting), one is expressing a willingness to accept both whatever bad things one’s chosen presidential candidate might do in office as well as the damage of participating in judging and hurting people in a courtroom setting. And, if one doesn’t vote, such as out of protest, it is like accepting that the worst candidate might be elected because you did not support a better candidate who had a chance of winning. It’s an inescapable package of personal karmic sacrifice for society. (see also my Q&A on karma)

Limiting the wealthiest to benefit the rest

In my opinion, there should be much lower legal or practical limits on how wealthy an individual or a corporation can become. Billionaires and large corporations just gobble up, and decide the fate of, most everything they encounter. Only they can often manage/afford representation on government committees. Only they can hire as many lawyers as necessary, and appeal for as long as necessary, to win any battle. Only they can afford to hire the most popular artists and constantly saturate the world with their marketing campaigns. Only they know that they will always have enough customers and employees, such that they can have exploitative internal policies and rude external customer service without consequences.

Why does a person need more than maybe a million dollars of savings (i.e., enough to have a middle-class family, house, car, health insurance, retirement, etc.), or a large corporation more than maybe a billion (i.e., enough to provide their service at a high quality to a large region)? Why do wealthier people get to act like monarchs/dictators and decide the fates of poorer people? Did they really earn their wealth fairly — through a daily workplace grind, like most people — or are they being rewarded for out-thinking, out-maneuvering, or being willing to do more unethical things than others? How many local people’s lives would have been enriched, how many local companies and jobs would have been created, if a large corporation’s store(s) had been required to close early, because they had reached their sales limit for that day?

The cost-benefit of possessions

Possessions are often most beneficial in the short-term. In the long-term, they are often a burden; become out-dated; require time and/or money for storage, security, transportation, maintenance, sales, donation, safe/responsible disposal, etc.

Changing (how) the world (works)

People don’t really want the world to change; the world changes on its own incessantly, which is the cause of most/all suffering in the world (i.e., whatever one builds or gets attached-to in this world is inevitably destroyed). People want to change *how* the natural, psychological, and social worlds work. For example, the human body and mind are frail, susceptible to disease, and short-lived, so people want to find ways of overcoming those problems. Walking, running, or using carts are too slow/weak and painful, so people invent transportation technologies. Crop yields are too low, so people do genetic and other agricultural engineering. Certain social structures/regimes that are currently in power are destroying the natural environment, causing wars, or allowing prejudiced or unequal treatment of people, so people want to change those regimes. And so forth. Humans rarely want to live in their natural state.