As I’ve discussed in previous articles, I’ve been studying my own physiology for several years. I’ve found the doctors I always trusted to give me the correct diagnosis and prescriptions often disagree. It’s clear that we have a lot to learn. I’m writing these articles mainly as a vehicle to organize my own thoughts on where I’ve been, and where I’m going. If I can help others understand some of these issues along the way, that’s a bonus. As I’m drafting a couple of new articles, rereading some of my favorite references and searching a few others, I’m reminded that the craft of reducing thoughts into a coherent essay is an exercise in reducing complexity to its essential components, and organizing them into a logical flow. This complexity is compounded when the subject itself involves inherently complex areas, such as the incredibly complex human organism and the enormous body of descriptions of that organism.
Ultimately, our decisions come down to what’s for dinner, what do we do about that sore shoulder, do we take the medicine the doctor recommends. Our decisions are never fully informed. The more we learn, the more we find we don’t understand yet. So life is a series of poorly informed decisions, with success being measured a decision at a time. My goal is to beat the odds, and live longer, and healthier, than everyone else. Someone will, so why not me? So, in that sense, this is a competition, like a World War II unit who saves a bottle of good liquor for the last survivor, who probably won’t really enjoy it anyway.
My posts will provide the synthesis of my experiences, and a discussion of what seems to be working for me, and what has not seemed to work. I’m especially interested in disagreement, especially among experts, and discovering undiscovered aspects that can reconcile the disagreements. My experience is the disagreements aren’t necessarily wrong, just based on different context than contrary information.
So, my first challenge is sorting the mountain of information I encounter to find a rational conclusion.
My second challenge is to understand the basis for that conclusion well enough to improve my confidence in that conclusion.
My third challenge is to seek out other information that can test that conclusion, either confirming it or directing a course change.
It might take a while. I hope you’ll help.
We are kindred spirits!
"I’m especially interested in disagreement, especially among experts, and discovering undiscovered aspects that can reconcile the disagreements. My experience is the disagreements aren’t necessarily wrong, just based on different context than contrary information."