http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
I love reading Gawande's stuff.
I love reading Gawande's stuff.
Toshi Bait
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Great article. I'm a fan of Gawande, too.
I'm also a fan of self-improvement, and think the concept of coaching even after becoming a "professional" is a fine one. There's a small component of that already accepted in the guise of continuing medical education, but there's no real on-job coaching in most of medicine as he notes, probably secondary to apathy, desire to avoid embarrassment, and ego in equal parts.
In my particular field there's not so much a direct role for coaching as in the very physical realm of surgery. Routine peer review of interpretations of past studies is becoming more of a norm, though, and I'm all for it.
I'm also a fan of self-improvement, and think the concept of coaching even after becoming a "professional" is a fine one. There's a small component of that already accepted in the guise of continuing medical education, but there's no real on-job coaching in most of medicine as he notes, probably secondary to apathy, desire to avoid embarrassment, and ego in equal parts.
In my particular field there's not so much a direct role for coaching as in the very physical realm of surgery. Routine peer review of interpretations of past studies is becoming more of a norm, though, and I'm all for it.
Gawande is clearly a hacker - in the good, old-fashioned sense of the word. How many surgeons take up a writing career on the side (and be damn good at it) while at the same time looking at their own complication stats that closely and wondering why they are shaped the way they are?
It makes perfect sense-if I want a critique on a photo, I ask a fellow photographer I respect greatly. Because I want him to nitpick, to find the little thing that he'd notice that no one else will - I can use that on a future shoot. An "Attaboy, great work!" does nothing for me. And that's the rub, I think. You have to seek out that kind of criticism to make it worthwhile. If it's assigned to you, you'll probably just dismiss it.
It makes perfect sense-if I want a critique on a photo, I ask a fellow photographer I respect greatly. Because I want him to nitpick, to find the little thing that he'd notice that no one else will - I can use that on a future shoot. An "Attaboy, great work!" does nothing for me. And that's the rub, I think. You have to seek out that kind of criticism to make it worthwhile. If it's assigned to you, you'll probably just dismiss it.
Yeah, you hit on an important point in those last two sentences of yours. In the article it talks about how not all coaches are great or even helpful. It doesn't stress enough that the people who seek out coaching are probably the ones who are more self-reflective to begin with, and are likely the ones who will be more receptive to potentially helpful coaching advice.
I have a tangentially related personal story, involving music rather than medicine. I actually was a pretty good trumpet player: principal trumpet of the All-Northwest Orchestra, 3rd in (Washington) state in the state solo competition, etc. My strength always was in my ability to hear and "decompose" what I was playing and what others were playing, rather than in technically blowing everyone away.
Fast forward a decade and then I come back to playing after taking the greater part of a year off due to my (medicine) hours. Thinking that youtube commenters might offer "coaching" type advice to replace that that I used to seek out from teachers, I posted up a few practice sessions. Admittedly these were not perfect run-throughs, but they weren't uniformly awful, at least in my opinion. The commenters were entirely unhelpful, though. Nothing constructive. Nothing useful. Only bland comments or ruthless attacks, saying I should sell everything and try a new pursuit, etc.
What's the point of this, besides that anonymous people on the internet are a bunch of assholes, especially those that play the trumpet? Perhaps that this "coaching" idea only works if you know who you're dealing with. I'm not sure...
I have a tangentially related personal story, involving music rather than medicine. I actually was a pretty good trumpet player: principal trumpet of the All-Northwest Orchestra, 3rd in (Washington) state in the state solo competition, etc. My strength always was in my ability to hear and "decompose" what I was playing and what others were playing, rather than in technically blowing everyone away.
Fast forward a decade and then I come back to playing after taking the greater part of a year off due to my (medicine) hours. Thinking that youtube commenters might offer "coaching" type advice to replace that that I used to seek out from teachers, I posted up a few practice sessions. Admittedly these were not perfect run-throughs, but they weren't uniformly awful, at least in my opinion. The commenters were entirely unhelpful, though. Nothing constructive. Nothing useful. Only bland comments or ruthless attacks, saying I should sell everything and try a new pursuit, etc.
What's the point of this, besides that anonymous people on the internet are a bunch of assholes, especially those that play the trumpet? Perhaps that this "coaching" idea only works if you know who you're dealing with. I'm not sure...
Tuba players rule, trumpet players drool!!!
Good article though.
Good article though.
Trumpet players deserve whatever abuse they get.